Public Disclosure Authorized Biodiversity, The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Climate Change, Tel: 202-473-1000 Fax: 202-477-0565 Internet: www.worldbank.org/ biodiversity and Adaptation Nature-Based Solutions from
Public Disclosure Authorized the World Bank Portfolio
46726 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation Nature-Based Solutions from the World Bank Portfolio © 2008 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA
September 2008 All rights reserved.
This report was prepared by Kathy MacKinnon, Claudia Sobrevila and Valerie Hickey (Biodiversity Team, ENV) with substantial material on adaptation in LAC from Walter Vergara, and contributions from Marjory-Anne Bromhead, Christophe Crepin, Karsten Ferrugiel and Gayatri Kanungo (AFR); Emilia Battaglini, Maurizio Gudagni and Karin Shepardson (ECA); Joe Leitmann and Tony Whitten (EAP); Enos Esikuri, Marea Hatziolos, Astrid Hillers and Klas Sander (ENV); Gunars Platais, Adriana Moreira, Juan Pablo Ruiz, Walter Vergara and Jocelyne Albert (LAC); Kanta Kumari Rigaud (MENA) and Richard Damania and Malcolm Jansen (SAR). Marieke van der Zon, Grace Aguilar, Perpetual Boateng, Marielena Guttierez and Valerie Hickey updated the biodiversity database and Valerie Hickey undertook the data analysis. Jim Cantrell was responsible for the design and layout. Thanks are due to the GEF regional coordinators and to Steve Gorman and the GEF Anchor team for support and advice with regard to the GEF portfolios. This paper is part of an ongoing review of the biodiversity portfolio of the World Bank Group and a contribution to Bank work on climate change and adaptation. It is a work in progress and has not been formally cleared by Bank management. This publication, and other publications about the Bank’s work on biodiversity, are available online at www.worldbank.org/biodiversity.
Design: Jim Cantrell (ENV)
Cover image: Hippos at sunset, Zambia: Kirk Hamilton. All images in text: Kirk Hamilton, Kathy MacKinnon, or Claudia Sobrevila (ENV)
Note: All dollars are U.S. dollars. Contents
Ch a p t e r s 1 The Bank’s Biodiversity Portfolio 1 Introduction 1 Methods 2 Investment Trends 5
2 Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Local Livelihoods: Challenges and Opportunities 11 Impacts of Climate Change 11 Why Biodiversity Matters in a Changing World 16 Protected Areas: Meeting the Challenges of Conservation and Climate Change 17 Corridors and Connectivity 18 Managing Marine Resources 20 Valuing Ecosystem Services 21
3 Mitigating Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity 26 Afforestation and Reforestation 26 Conserving Carbon Stores 27 Reducing Deforestation 27 Maintaining Peat Lands, Marshes, and Wetlands 29 Restoring Grasslands 30 Improving Ecosystem Services 30 Protecting Coral Reefs 31 Investing in Alternative Energy 33 New Partnerships to Address Biodiversity and Climate Change 34 Innovative Financing for Carbon and Biodiversity 36
4 Adapting to Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity 39 Maintaining and Restoring Native Ecosystems 39 Landscape Connectivity 40 Adaptation in Agricultural Landscapes 41 Adaptation in Marine and Coastal Areas 42 Reducing Vulnerability 43 Adopting Indigenous Knowledge to Adapt to Climate Change 45
— iii — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
5 Biodiversity Conservation and Food, Water and Livelihood 51 Security: Emerging Issues Agriculture, Climate Change, and Biodiversity 51 Agriculture and Food Security 53 Invasive Alien Species 55 Biofuels for Renewable Energy 57 Sustainable Land Management 59 Water Services 61 Looking Forward: The Strategic Framework for Climate Change and Development 63
Bibliography 65
An n e x 1 The World Bank Biodiversity Portfolio 67
Ta b l e s 1.1 Total Biodiversity Investments by Year and Funding Source (million USD) 5 1.2 Total Biodiversity Investments by Region 7 1.3 Regional Breakdowns of Biodiversity Investments by Funder (million USD) 8 2.1 Six Climate Threats, and the 12 Countries Most at Risk from Each 11 2.2 Adaptation Activities in the Latin America Region 15 4.1 Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Infrastructure Projects to Protect Carbon Sinks and Biodiversity 47 5.1 Known Invasive Species Listed in Different Countries as Suitable for Biofuel Production 58
Bo x e s 1.1 Innovative Funds that Leverage Biodiversity Investments for Carbon Outcomes 3 2.1 Linking Biodiversity and Climate Change: Permafrost Melt and Biodiversity Loss in Hövsgöl National Park, Mongolia 12 2.2 Mainstreaming Conservation in the Cape Floristic Region 15 2.3 Richtersveld Community Biodiversity Conservation 16 2.4 Amazon Rainforest Protected Areas System (ARPA): A Storehouse for Carbon and Biodiversity 18 2.5 Central Asia: Where the Mountains Reach the Sky 19 2.6 Global Tiger Initiative: An Umbrella Species for Conservation 20 2.7 Marine Protected Areas, Fish Populations and Climate Change 21 2.8 COREMAP: Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management in Indonesia 22 2.9 Tajikistan Community Watershed Project: Improving Management in Mountain Ecosystems 23 2.10 Valuing Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica 23 3.1 Reforestation under the BioCarbon Fund 27 3.2 Forest Conservation in Aceh, Indonesia 28 3.3 Wetlands, Livelihoods and Climate Change in the Nile Basin 29 3.4 Trinidad and Tobago: Nariva Wetland Restoration and Carbon Offsets 30 3.5 Safeguarding Grasslands to Capture Carbon: Lessons from China 31 3.6 Jordan: Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Jordan Rift Valley 32 3.7 Payments for Environmental Services to Protect Biodiversity and Carbon in Agricultural Landscapes 32 3.8 Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on Ocean Ecosystems and Coastal Communities 33 3.9 Nakai Nam Theun: Forest Conservation to Protect a Hydropower Investment in Lao PDR 34 3.10 Can Carbon Markets Save the Sumatran Tigers and Elephants? 35 4.1 Studying the Economics of Adaptation 38 4.2 Adaptation in the Caribbean 38 4.3 Colombia: Biodiversity in the Andes 40 4.4 Rebuilding Resilience in Wetland Ecosystems 41 4.5 Biological Corridors in a Changing World 42
— iv — The Bank’s Biodiversity Portfolio
4.6 Adaptation to Climate Change Using Agrobiodiversity Resources in the Rainfed Highlands of Yemen 43 4.7 Managing Marine and Coastal Resources 44 4.8 Protecting Karst and Cave Ecosystems in Croatia 45 4.9 Protecting Natural Forests for Flood Control 46 4.10 Measures to Address Climate Change in the Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve in Peru 48 4.11 Using Land Tenure to Facilitate Greater Adaptation to Climate Change 49 5.1 Downstream Benefits from Forest Conservation in Madagascar 52 5.2 Supporting Climate Risk Management in Africa 53 5.3 Bank Studies and Projects related to Climate Change and Agriculture and Natural Resource Management 54 5.4 The Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) 56 5.5 The Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) 57 5.6 Biofuels—Too Much of a Good Thing? 60 5.7 Conserving Biodiversity through Sustainable Land Management in India 61 5.8 Conservation Farming in Practice in South Africa 62 5.9 Protected Areas as Water Towers 63
Fi g u r e s 1.1 Annual Total Biodiversity Investments including Co-financing (million USD) 6 1.2 Total Biodiversity Investments by Funding Source, 1988—2008 6 1.3 Annual Biodiversity Investments - Bank investments and co-financing (million USD) 7 1.4 Bank Biodiversity Investments by Funding Source 7 1.5 Total Biodiversity Investments by Region (million USD) 7 1.6 Total Co-financing for Biodiversity Projects in Each Region (million USD) 9 1.7 Percentage of Regional Co-financing 9 1.8 Ratio of Co-financing to Bank Investments in Each Region (million USD) 9 3.1 Likely Changes to Earth Systems depending on Mitigation Activities Undertaken 25
— v —
1
The Bank’s Biodiversity Portfolio
and industry. Genetic diversity provides the basis for Introduction new breeding programs, improved crops, enhanced agricultural production, and food security. Forests, limate change is a serious environmental grasslands, freshwater, and marine and other natural challenge that could undermine the drive ecosystems provide a range of services, often not for sustainable development. Since the recognized in national economic accounts but vital to Cindustrial revolution, the mean surface temperature human welfare: regulating water flows, flood control, of Earth has increased an average of 1° Celsius per pollination, decontamination, carbon sequestration, century due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases biodiversity conservation, and nutrient and hydrological in the atmosphere. Furthermore, most of this change cycling. Sound ecosystem management provides has occurred in the past 30 to 40 years, and the rate countless streams of benefits to, and opportunities for, of increase is accelerating, with significant impacts human societies, while also supporting the web of life. both at a global scale and at local and regional levels. Biodiversity conservation contributes to environmental While it remains important to reduce greenhouse gas sustainability, a critical Millennium Development Goal emissions and reverse climate change in the long run, (MDG) and a central pillar of World Bank assistance. many of the impacts of climate change are already in evidence. As a result, governments, communities, and The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment showed that civil society are increasingly concerned with anticipating over the past 50 years human activities have changed the future effects of climate change while searching for ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than at any strategies to mitigate, and adapt to, its current effects. comparable period in our history. These changes have contributed to many net development gains but at The World Bank’s mission is to alleviate poverty and growing environmental costs: biodiversity loss, land support sustainable development. The conservation and degradation, and reduced access to adequate water sustainable use of natural ecosystems and biodiversity and natural resources for many of the world’s poorest are critical to fulfilling these objectives. Biodiversity is people. Biodiversity loss matters because species and the foundation and mainstay of agriculture, forests, habitats are the building blocks on which human and fisheries, as well as soil conservation and water livelihoods depend, the foundation for production quality. Biological resources provide the raw materials forests, fisheries, and agricultural crops. Enhanced for livelihoods, sustenance, medicines, trade, tourism, protection and management of biological resources
— 1 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio will also contribute to solutions as nations and habitats through Bank-funded energy and infrastructure communities strive to adapt to climate change. projects and development policy lending (DPL). The Bank is also currently developing innovative Terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems play a significant new climate investment funds, including funds role in the global carbon cycle. About 60 gigatons of that will target natural ecosystems (see Box 1.1). carbon (GtC) annually are taken up and released by terrestrial ecosystems, and another 90 GtC are taken Bank projects directly support biodiversity conservation up and released by marine systems. These natural and sustainable use in a range of natural habitats, from fluxes are large compared to the approximately 6.3 GtC coral reefs to some of the world’s highest mountains and currently being emitted from fossil fuels and industrial from tropical evergreen and monsoon forests to savanna processes and about 1.6 GtC per year from deforestation, grasslands and unique drylands, limestone, marine and predominantly in the tropics. Terrestrial ecosystems freshwater ecosystems. Many are in centers of recognized appear to be storing 3 GtC per year and oceans global importance for biodiversity: mega-diversity another 1.7 GtC, with a resulting buildup of 3.2 Gt of hotspots, remaining wilderness areas, the Global 200 atmospheric carbon each year. Appropriate management Ecoregions described by Worldwide Fund for Nature of terrestrial and aquatic habitats can, therefore, make a (WWF), and Endemic and Important Bird Areas. Many significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases. projects are in countries and regions where communities are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The World Bank Group (WBG) has a rich portfolio By promoting investments in these locations, the Bank of biodiversity projects. Through lending and grant is helping countries to meet the 2010 targets of the support to client countries, it is one of the largest CBD and prepare for the impacts of climate change. international funding sources for biodiversity worldwide. This portfolio review and update shows This portfolio review is a report for the World that between July 1988 and June 2008, the World Conservation Congress in Barcelona in October Bank approved 598 projects that wholly or partially 2008. It provides an update on previous reviews supported biodiversity conservation and sustainable of the Bank’s biodiversity portfolio, which focused use. Of these, 277 projects have been completed. This on specific ecosystems (forests, mountains, marine biodiversity portfolio represents over $6 billion in ecosystems) and themes (protected areas) as well as biodiversity investments, including Bank contributions previous overviews of the whole portfolio. It includes and leveraged co-financing. Although this investment information on some of the most recent highlights of is a very small part of the Bank’s overall lending, this the portfolio, particularly those projects and programs biodiversity funding has made a substantial contribution that emphasize biodiversity-climate change linkages. in helping client countries meet their obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as well as implementing the convention’s work programs and priorities. A substantial amount of that investment has been dedicated to protected areas, but there is an increasing focus on improving natural resource Methods management, and mainstreaming biodiversity into This paper is based on the most recent update of the forestry, coastal zone management, and agriculture. World Bank biodiversity portfolio and summarizes the Beyond these “traditional” biodiversity sectors, the efforts of the World Bank Group (alternatively, WBG, Bank is also supporting innovative modalities for the World Bank, or the Bank) over the past 20 years protection and improved management of natural (1988–2008) to promote the conservation and sustainable
— 2 — The Bank’s Biodiversity Portfolio
Box 1.1 Innovative Funds that Leverage Biodiversity Investments for Carbon Outcomes
The BioCarbon Fund (BioCF), a public/private initiative administered by the World Bank, aims to deliver cost-effective emission reductions while promoting biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. This fund provides carbon finance for projects that sequester or conserve greenhouse gases in forest, agricultural, and other ecosystems. Through its focus on bio-carbon, or carbon “sinks,” it delivers carbon finance to many developing countries that otherwise have few opportunities to participate in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), or to countries with economies in transition through joint implementation (JI). The BioCarbon Fund tests and demonstrates how land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) activities can generate high-quality emission reductions (ERs) with environmental and livelihood benefits that can be measured, monitored, and certified. The Fund started operations in May 2004 and has a total capital of $91.9 million.
Over 150 project proposals have been submitted for consideration by the BioCarbon Fund. The World Bank, in consultation with the BioCarbon Fund participants, has identified a group of around 20 leading project candidates, which would supply the greenhouse gas emission reductions to the Fund. Proposals were assessed against criteria, including the likelihood of the project raising the necessary start-up capital, the price requested per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent, the expected benefits for the local environment and communities, and the developer’s track record. Geographical and technological diversity was also sought.
The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) will assist developing countries in their efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) by giving added value to standing forests. The FCPF aims to reduce deforestation and forest degradation by compensating developing countries for greenhouse gas emission reduc- tions through improved protection of forests as carbon stores. The partnership became functionally operational in June 2008.
The FCPF is designed to set the stage for a large-scale system of incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, providing a source of financing for the sustainable use of forest resources and biodiversity conservation, and for the more than 1.2 billion people who depend on forests for their livelihoods. It will build the capacity of developing countries in tropical and subtropical regions to tap into any future system of positive incen- tives for REDD. In some of these countries, the FCPF will also help reduce the rate of deforestation by providing an incentive for each ton of carbon dioxide emissions reduced through specific emission reductions programs that target the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation.
Fourteen states have been selected as the first developing country members of an innovative partnership and international financing mechanism to combat tropical deforestation and climate change. The 14 developing countries include six in Africa (the Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, and Madagascar); five in Latin America (Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Mexico, and Panama); and three in Asia (Nepal, Lao PDR, and Vietnam).
For more information on carbon funds administered by the World Bank, please visit http://www.carbonfinance.org
use of biodiversity. This period spans ratification and Biodiversity Focal Area program, especially in promoting implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity the sustainability of protected area networks and in as well as two major Earth Summits in Rio de Janeiro mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes. and Johannesburg, and more than 15 years of experience with implementation activities of the Global Environment This portfolio update incorporates both stand-alone Facility (GEF). As a GEF implementing agency, the Bank biodiversity projects and biodiversity-related sectoral has played a major role in supporting the objectives of the projects—for example, a hydropower project in Lao PDR,
— 3 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio an irrigation project in Iran, and a ship-generated waste through its Environment Window to mainstream the management project in the Eastern Caribbean—that environmental dimension of sustainable development clearly describe and include biodiversity activities. into overall World Bank assistance by supporting the It includes all such projects financed through the implementation of the Bank’s corporate and regional International Bank for Reconstruction and Development environmental strategies. BNPP funding has supported (IBRD), International Development Association (IDA), upstream analytical work to strengthen poverty- and GEF projects executed through the World Bank. biodiversity linkages and Bank lending; strengthened The Bank’s private sector partner, the International new partnerships such as Global Witness and the Finance Corporation (IFC), contributes to biodiversity Alliance on forest governance; and supported capacity conservation through private sector lending and GEF building through initiatives to address invasive alien grants; only the latter are included in this analysis. species and local language field guides. Another Bank In addition to projects and project components program, the Development Marketplace (DM), is with specific and direct biodiversity objectives (the providing seed funding for innovative development biodiversity portfolio), the Bank funds many other ideas. An increasing focus on environment in the development projects that may also have positive, albeit Development Marketplace has afforded the opportunity indirect, impacts on biodiversity. For example, pollution to support new biodiversity initiatives and small abatement, sewage treatment, and cleaning up pollution grants in some of the poorer countries. Since the discharges may enhance water quality in freshwater marketplace opened for business, it has supported ecosystems and benefit freshwater biodiversity. This 54 biodiversity projects. In 2008, the Development update, however, does not cover such indirect support. Marketplace focused on sustainable agriculture.
A small but growing source of funding for protected Annex 1 lists all Bank biodiversity projects included areas and other biodiversity activities comes from in the portfolio for the fiscal year in which they were special World Bank trust funds. The Bank contributes approved by the Bank Board or, in the case of GEF to biodiversity conservation through innovative medium-size projects (GEF MSPs), by the country programs funded by the Development Grant Facility management unit. The source of funding, whether WBG (DGF) and the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (loans, credits, or grants) or co-financing from non-Bank (BNPP). The DGF, sourced from Bank income, provides sources, is noted for each project. Where there is more support to global partnerships such as the World Bank/ than one source of WBG financing in a project, these Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) Alliance for Forest components are assessed separately to avoid double Conservation and Sustainable Use, the Critical Ecosystems counting. Co-financing amounts include contributions Partnership Fund (CEPF), and the Global Invasive from borrower governments, local beneficiaries, Species Programme (GISP). It has also contributed nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), bilateral approximately $50 million annually to the Consultative donors, regional development banks, and United Nations’ Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) agencies. As in previous reviews, biodiversity costs networks for critical research to improve crops and are determined by itemizing each activity component. increase agricultural productivity. The DGF also provided For each project, figures have been estimated for total co-financing to projects such as the Millennium project cost, total biodiversity costs (WBG funds plus Assessment, Global Coral Reef Targeted Research associated co-financing), and Bank biodiversity funding. Project, and the International Agriculture Assessment. Annex 1 provides a listing, by region, of all biodiversity projects with their funding and key activities. Since 1998, the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP) has contributed $50 million
— 4 — The Bank’s Biodiversity Portfolio
ecosystems to high mountain habitats, and some of the Investment Trends most expansive tropical forest wildernesses. Many of The biodiversity portfolio of the WBG has shown a these habitats provide critical ecosystem services and steady growth over the past 20 years, especially since can be an important buffer to climate change, providing 1992 when GEF funding became available. Between July low-cost options for adaptation and mitigation actions. 1988 and June 2008, the Bank approved 598 projects that During the period between 1988 and 2008, the WBG fully or partially supported biodiversity conservation and committed almost $3.5 billion in loans and GEF resources sustainable use. These biodiversity initiatives are taking and leveraged $2.7 billion in co-financing, resulting place in 122 countries, and through 52 multi-country in a total investment portfolio exceeding $6 billion. efforts. More than 130 of these projects were approved since the last World Conservation Congress in 2004. Table 1.1 shows the total World Bank commitments Many of these projects benefit from GEF funding. for biodiversity projects by year and funding source from 1988 to 2008. Cumulative WBG biodiversity Bank biodiversity projects directly support biodiversity funding for biodiversity projects during that period conservation in a range of natural habitats, from temperate totaled $6,192 million. Figure 1.1 summarizes forests to freshwater rivers and lakes, from large marine biodiversity investments from all funding sources.
Table 1.1 Total Biodiversity Investments by Year and Funding Source (million USD) Total Total Trust Carbon WBG Co- Biodiversity FY GEF IBRD IDA Funds Finance Investments Financing Funding 1988 0.00 3.79 2.86 0.00 0.00 6.65 8.95 15.60 1989 0.00 3.16 3.93 0.00 0.00 7.09 5.21 12.30 1990 0.00 129.26 14.22 0.00 0.00 143.48 91.00 234.48 1991 0.00 97.17 35.48 0.00 0.00 132.65 129.94 262.59 1992 23.20 91.21 125.97 0.00 0.00 240.37 130.17 370.55 1993 29.79 17.13 28.37 0.00 0.00 75.29 43.68 118.97 1994 51.27 27.94 54.01 0.00 0.00 133.21 63.95 197.17 1995 44.06 55.81 34.80 36.66 0.00 171.33 176.06 347.40 1996 74.23 40.89 5.07 0.30 0.00 120.48 70.48 190.96 1997 95.90 39.29 103.78 2.00 0.00 240.97 158.46 399.43 1998 78.27 59.64 122.86 0.20 0.00 260.96 252.68 513.64 1999 45.12 15.87 40.15 3.23 0.00 104.36 101.97 206.34 2000 52.07 49.59 14.05 7.35 0.00 123.05 60.74 183.80 2001 166.75 49.54 29.41 27.90 0.00 273.59 268.68 542.27 2002 164.92 15.10 55.49 5.67 0.00 241.18 205.21 446.39 2003 81.31 33.33 62.29 0.00 0.00 176.92 110.68 287.60 2004 103.46 38.95 66.60 4.42 0.44 213.87 274.97 488.84 2005 118.63 88.64 73.20 14.46 0.00 294.93 154.38 449.31 2006 156.02 78.65 25.39 17.70 19.20 296.96 172.33 469.29 2007 70.61 35.54 27.52 3.02 1.04 137.73 55.78 193.51 2008 48.36 33.38 0.80 1.10 0.00 83.64 178.11 261.75 Totals $1,403.95 $1,003.86 $926.23 $124.00 $20.68 $3,478.72 $2,713.45 $6,192.18
— 5 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Figure 1.1 Annual Total Biodiversity Investments Including Co-financing (million USD) Total Biodiversity Funding, 1988-2008 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00
Millions US 200.00 100.00 0.00 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20022003200420052006 2007 2008
Figure 1.1 gives an indication of the normal fluctuation of IDA funds (43 percent) and $276 million of IBRD of the funding cycles. Apparent surges in funding funds (27.5 percent) are linked to GEF financing; this is between years are explained by bunching of a few large a trend that has become more common over time. This projects in some years or slippages of Board approval indicates that a wide range of client countries, including dates. Apparent decreases in overall funding levels in the poorer IDA-eligible countries, are borrowing for one year are usually compensated in the next. Longer biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. It is preparation times due to the particular pace of country expected that in the coming years new carbon finance dialogue and the intricacies of biodiversity projects are modalities will become a major source of conservation also contributors to these fluctuations. Comparisons funding, especially in biodiversity-rich countries. between years are thus difficult to interpret and necessitate a longer-term view of biodiversity portfolio trends. In the early stages of the review period (1989–92), IBRD Preliminary qualitative assessments of the portfolio funded a few large projects. This is well illustrated by suggest that funding reflects, and responds to, the the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region, and diverse strategic conservation priorities of Bank clients. Brazil specifically, where funding in the early period focused on large environmental projects such as the Partner governments have borrowed just over 31 percent Rondonia Natural Resource Management, Mato (down from 39 percent in 2000) of this total through Grosso Natural Resource Management, and National IBRD loans or IDA credits, representing a total of $1,930 Environmental projects, whose cumulative biodiversity million. Grants comprise 25 percent ($1,548 million) and investment totaled $200 million. The emphasis has since were facilitated through Bank-executed GEF projects shifted to lending for a larger number of smaller-sized ($1,403 million), several trust funds ($124 million), projects or components within larger projects, which and carbon financing ($20.7 million). The remaining indicates improved mainstreaming of biodiversity 44 percent of total funding ($2,713 million) represents conservation into broader development lending. co-financing and parallel financing, approximately equivalent to an additional 78 cents for every dollar the Figure 1.2 Total Biodiversity Investments by World Bank invests in biodiversity (up from 70 cents Funding Source, 1988–2008 per dollar invested by 2000). Figure 1.2 presents the Lending total biodiversity investment by funding source. Figure 31% GEF 23% 1.3 represents the total annual biodiversity investments by the Bank and the leveraged co-financing. Trust Funds Grants 2% 25% The total number of biodiversity projects or projects with biodiversity components funded by IBRD and IDA Carbon Finance Co-financing 0% is 116 and 122 projects, respectively. Some $398 million 44%
— 6 — The Bank’s Biodiversity Portfolio
Figure 1.3 Annual Biodiversity Investments—Bank Investments and Co-financing (million USD) Total Bank and Leveraged Investments, 1988–2008 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996199820002002 200420062008 Total WBG Investments Co-financing
The number of biodiversity projects as a whole has steadily Table 1.2 Total Biodiversity Investments by increased over the review period, with an addition of Region 76 new projects over the two years between 2006 and Total Investments 2008. While the number of projects has increased, the (million USD) Percentage average investment per project has become smaller. AFR $1,796.13 29.01 Much of the increase is attributable to an increase in EAP $775.65 12.53 the number of GEF projects. More than 50 percent ECA $364.50 5.89 of the Bank’s total biodiversity portfolio is made up LAC $2,428.40 39.22 of GEF projects or projects with GEF components MNA $139.68 2.26 blended with IBRD and IDA lending (see Figure 1.4). SAR $378.33 6.11 Global $309.50 5.00 Total $6,192.18 The WBG is supporting conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity worldwide. Table 1.2 and Figure 1.5 show the cumulative biodiversity funding (over $6 billion) Less than 3 percent of total biodiversity funding went from all sources by region. The major share (39 percent) to the Middle East and North Africa (MNA). A further of all funding for biodiversity projects went to Latin 5 percent represents biodiversity financing through America and the Caribbean (LAC) ($2,428 million), with global initiatives, such as the IFC Small and Medium 6 percent to South Asia (SAR), 29 percent to Africa (AFR), Enterprise Fund, the Critical Ecosystems Partnership 12 percent to East Asia and the Pacific (EAP), and nearly Fund, Coral Reef Targeted Research, and projects funded 6 percent to Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA). under the BNPP Forests and Biodiversity windows.
Figure 1.4 Bank Biodiversity Investments by Table 1.3 shows IBRD and IDA funding by region, Funding Source totaling $1,004 million and $926 million respectively. Total WBG Investments, 1988-2008 (No. projects, percentage of total project portfolio) Figure 1.5 Total Biodiversity Investments by IBRD, 116, 19% GEF, 309, 53% Region (million USD)
GEF REG, 189, 33% Total Biodiversity Investments by Region 3,000 2,500 GEF MSP, 83, 14% 2,000 GEF EA, 29, 5% 1,500 IDA, 122, GEF IFC, 8, 1% 1,000 Carbon USD Millions 20% 500 Trust Finance, 8, 1% 0 Funds, 42, 7% AFR EAP ECALAC MNA SAR Global
— 7 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Table 1.3 Regional Breakdowns of Biodiversity Investments by Funder Trust Carbon IBRD IDA Funds Finance GEF GEF REG GEF MSP GEF IFC GEF EA Total AFR 16.728 502.1315 11.11 9.7 395.233 379.682 14.13 0.475 0.946 934.9025 EAP 213.786 123.3699 18.835 2 168.0914 137.98166 13.69775 15.19 1.222 526.0823 ECA 55.79179 29.5425 5.055 1.48 136.1177 127.68371 5.245 0 3.189 227.987 LAC 688.6756 63.21063 51.414 7.5 508.2319 472.73958 29.6308 5 0.8615 1319.032 MNA 25.47818 1.711008 0 0 59.01 55.88 2.24 0 0.89 86.19919 SAR 0.4 206.2597 0 0 66.52 66.32 0 0 0.2 273.1797 Global 3 0 37.59 0 70.75 56 0.75 14 0 111.34 Total 1003.86 926.2253 124.004 20.68 1403.954 1296.2869 65.69355 34.665 7.3085 3478.7228
Among the regions, LAC still has the largest share value of the region’s ecosystems and country capacity of IBRD biodiversity funding with $688.7 million (68 to prepare and implement projects. In recent years, percent). Many of the LAC countries are among the a greater focus on regional and national projects mid- to higher-income developing countries and are to address sustainable land management and land not eligible for IDA credits. Conversely, the relatively degradation has increased GEF funding to Africa, poorer sub-Saharan African countries have received often with some associated biodiversity benefits. the largest share of IDA funding, corresponding to 54 percent (or $502.1) of total IDA biodiversity funds. More than half of these GEF investments have gone toward protected area projects, but the Bank is As an implementing agency for the GEF, the WBG increasingly seeking to promote the GEF mandate on channels GEF grants for enabling activities (EAs), mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes, medium-sized projects (MSPs), and regular GEF especially where there are opportunities to integrate grants, both through the Bank and the IFC. The Bank’s GEF-funded activities within Bank sector lending. The biodiversity investments through GEF grant windows Bank is also increasingly looking at best practice and have more than doubled over the last five years to lessons learned, both to improve the effectiveness of $1,403 million in all regions. By FY08, the Bank had the GEF portfolio and overall Bank lending efforts. supported 29 biodiversity EAs (up from 19 in FY99) and 83 MSPs (up from 17 in FY99), spread across all The introduction of GEF MSPs in 1997 made mid- Bank regions (see Table 1.3). In recent years, the Bank sized grants more readily available to NGOs and has provided less support for enabling activities such as nongovernment stakeholders, which allowed a rapid Biodiversity Action Plans but has begun to help some expansion of the biodiversity portfolio. Latin America countries to design and implement Biosafety projects. and the Caribbean (LAC) is the region with the highest Pilot projects to address biosafety issues have been GEF funding overall for biodiversity, a reflection of developed for India, Colombia, and West Africa. the species richness and high biodiversity value of the region’s ecosystems. LAC is also the region with the GEF funding for biodiversity mirrors regular lending. most MSPs. The MSPs have proven to be useful and Together the Africa and LAC regions jointly absorb cost-effective instruments under the Biodiversity Focal over 60 percent of all biodiversity investments made Area to test new management models and demonstrate through the three GEF windows. Latin America and tangible biodiversity impacts at key sites, even though the Caribbean is the region with the highest GEF it may be difficult to scale up successful pilots into funding overall, a reflection of the high biodiversity larger programs. MSP activities with an effective local
— 8 — The Bank’s Biodiversity Portfolio partner (for example, NGOs,) have proven especially Figure 1.8 Ratio of Co-financing to Bank useful for site-based conservation, even within countries Investments in Each Region riven by civil strife and weak governance. The MSP 2.00 grants have also provided the opportunity for greater 1.80 1.60 community involvement in biodiversity management. 1.40 1.20 Unfortunately, the recent introduction and slow uptake of 1.00 national allocations under the GEF Resource Allocation 0.80 0.60 Framework (RAF) seems to have reduced GEF availability 0.40 0.20 to many of the least developed countries and NGOs. 0.00 AFR EAP ECALAC MNA SAR Global
Overall, co-financing from client governments and other donors makes up 44 percent of the use in the LAC and Africa regions (see Figure 1.7). total biodiversity investment; this reflects strong This is consistent with previous portfolio reviews. commitment for biodiversity conservation at the national level. Figure 1.6 reveals the total WBG and Though co-financing amounts differ from co-financing investments in each region, and Figure project to project, it is clear from Figure 1.8 that 1.7 illustrates the breakdown of co-financing alone. the LAC and AFR regions attract over 80 cents in co-financing for each WBG dollar invested,
In line with the findings for total investments, 73 percent whereas EAP and SAR attract only 40 cents. of the $2,713 million parallel and co-investment funding supports biodiversity conservation and sustainable Support in WBG-funded projects covers the entire range of globally important ecosystems. Forest ecosystems received a majority of the investments with more than half of all projects focused on forest systems, including Figure 1.6 Total Co-financing for Biodiversity dry forests and rainforests. Fewer projects dealt with Projects in Each Region (million USD) wetland ecosystems, coastal and marine ecosystems, 1,400 drylands, and mountain ecosystems. Many projects 1,200 1,000 provide support to protected areas and other conservation 800 600 initiatives across more than one major ecosystem. Over 400 $ millions 200 the whole biodiversity portfolio, the largest amount of 0 AFR EAP ECALAC MNA SAR Global funding and support has gone to projects that include Co-financing WBG Investments expansion and strengthening of protected areas, mechanisms for sustainable financing, and support for Figure 1.7 Percentage of Regional Co-financing conservation activities in park buffer zones. The Bank is committed to maintaining support for protected areas, Total Co-financing by Region, 1988-2008 but increasingly is seeking opportunities to link such Global SAR 7% 4% support to sectoral development programs, climate MNA change, and biodiversity activities in the wider landscape. 2% AFR 32% LAC The scale and variety of Bank financing instruments 41% provide multiple opportunities to integrate biodiversity concerns into development assistance and to address EAP ECA 9% 5% the root causes of biodiversity loss and climate change.
— 9 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
The Bank’s leadership and coordinating role within the facilitate participatory dialogue between client countries donor community, complemented by access to trust funds and networks of other relevant stakeholders on matters of and lending resources, can help to introduce biodiversity regional biodiversity and climate change concern, such as within national agendas as a critical part of sustainable loss of ecosystem resilience, forest law enforcement and development. As well as being a major funding source for governance, wildlife trade, and overharvesting of natural biodiversity projects in developing countries, the Bank is a resources. The new multi-donor climate investment funds source of technical knowledge and expertise. Additionally, provide exciting new opportunities to further benefit the Bank has the standing and convening power to biodiversity while addressing the climate change agenda.
— 10 — 2 Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Local Livelihoods: Challenges and Opportunities
abitat loss and fragmentation, waste and land sources. Moreover, this degradation and overexploitation, pollution, the disturbance in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems generate impact of invasive alien species niches that can be exploited by invasive exotic species. and,H increasingly, climate change all threaten global biodiversity. Global warming will affect all species and exacerbate the other environmental stresses already being experienced by ecosystems. Climate change may thus further accelerate both the ongoing impoverishment Impacts of Climate Change of global biodiversity, caused by unsustainable use of natural capital, and the degradation of land, freshwater, Climate change, and more frequent extreme weather and marine systems. For example, the warming of coastal events such as hurricanes, will have repercussions on waters, coral die-off, and impacts on coastal fisheries coastal development, water supply, energy, agriculture, caused by climate change are exacerbating the impacts and health, among other sectors. Table 2.1 shows the on marine systems of overexploitation by industrial likely impact of potential climate-related threats in and artisanal fisheries, as well as pollution from ships’ different Bank client countries, many of them among
Table 2.1 Six Climate Threats, and the 12 Countries Most at Risk from Each Drought Flood Storm Coastal 1m Agriculture Malawi Bangladesh Philippines All low-lying Island States Sudan Ethiopia China Bangladesh Vietnam Senegal Zimbabwe India Madagascar Egypt Zimbabwe India Cambodia Vietnam Tunisia Mali Mozambique Mozambique Moldova Indonesia Zambia Niger Laos Mongolia Mauritania Morocco Mauritania Pakistan Haiti China Niger Eritrea Sri Lanka Samoa Mexico India Sudan Thailand Tonga Myanmar Malawi Chad Vietnam China Bangladesh Algeria Kenya Benin Honduras Senegal Ethiopia Iran Rwanda Fiji Libya Pakistan
Low Income Middle Income
— 11 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio the poorest nations. Many countries would already already affecting many ecosystems, especially those suffer with a sea-level rise of only 1 meter, but a more in higher latitudes. The impacts of permafrost melt dramatic rise of up to 5 meters would have even in Mongolia, for instance, are already affecting water greater impacts, flooding large areas in the Philippines, resources and biodiversity in Mongolia (see Box 2.1). Brazil, Venezuela, Senegal, and Fiji. Climate change is
Box 2.1 Linking Biodiversity and Climate Change: Permafrost Melt and Biodiversity Loss in Hövsgöl National Park, Mongolia
Hövsgöl National Park is centered on Lake Hövsgöl, one of the of the world’s ancient lakes located about 200 km southwest of Lake Baikal, in mountainous northern Mongolia at 1,700m above sea level. The lake is 135 km long, about 20-30 km wide, with a depth of 262 m. Primary production in the lake is quite low, and the deep penetration of light down to 30 m gives it a blue hue, thus the name, “the blue pearl of Mongolia.” The winters are long and vicious, with temperatures dropping to below -40° C. The Lake Hövsgöl area lies at the southern edge of the taiga forest, and is underlain by permafrost (layers of frozen soil).
Uncontrolled grazing by domestic animals—sheep, goats, and cattle—on the mountain slopes around the lake and the gathering of fuel wood have caused the forest edge to retreat. The loss of forest exposes the ground to sunlight; as a result, the permafrost melts at a faster rate than normal, and aerobic decomposition occurs, producing carbon dioxide. The region has already had an average temperature increase of about 1.4 C° over the last 35 years.
In 2001, the Mongolian Academy of Sciences received a five-year GEF grant to study the dynamics of biodiversity loss and permafrost melt in Hövsgöl National Park. The objectives of this study were to:
44 Identify the impacts of pasture use and forest cutting on the dynamics of forest, steppe, riparian zones, and streams in tributary valleys of Lake Hövsgöl. 44 Define how those impacts interact and are affecting the melting of permafrost (and thus release of carbon dioxide), soil characteristics, and plant and animal biodiversity. 44 Inventory climate change effects in the Hövsgöl National Park. 44 Determine sustainable resource use patterns that will also protect biodiversity, permafrost, and soil sequestra- tion of carbon. 44 Calculate the costs and benefits of alternative land use practices, especially as related to pastoral nomads.
The research determined that the active-layer thickness of the permafrost in the Hovsgol region varied in association with livestock grazing pressure. Surface ground data shows that different plant covers have different insulation values; removal of vegetation cover increases mean summer surface and ground temperatures, accelerating the rate of permafrost melt. Thus, the key to preserving permafrost and ecosystems, especially in the Hovsgol taiga zone, must be based on the protection of appropriate vegetation cover. The researchers concluded that climate change impacts on the steppe and forests are very similar to, and magnify, those caused by nomadic pastoralism and forest cutting. Accordingly herders need to change grazing strategies to adapt to changing conditions in this harsh and fragile environment. The conclusions regarding land use practices have been summarized in the recently published Herders’ Handbook (English version on www.hovsgolecology.org). This includes recommendations for more frequent movements of livestock to reduce grazing pressure and improve range management. While little can be done to alter the immediate course of climate change, protecting vegetation cover through appropriate land-use practices can slow the rate of permafrost melt and help to protect Mongolia’s water resources, biodiversity, and natural ecosystems. These lessons are also relevant to other areas within the great band of temperate forest- grassland mosaic in the mountains between Eastern Europe and eastern Russia/northern China.
— 12 — Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Local Livelihoods: Challenges and Opportunities
The impacts of climate change in the Latin America and would also suffer increasingly from saltwater intrusion, Caribbean Region (LAC) include potential sea-level rise creating problems in freshwater supply. Potential sea-level that threatens coastal habitats and human settlements; rise changes already reported for the Caribbean Basin increased sea surface temperatures; melting of tropical range from 3 to 8 mm in three years and will impact glaciers and snowcaps; warming, and drying out, of both human populations and biodiversity. Anticipated moorlands and other high altitude ecosystems in the increases will threaten aquifer-based freshwater supplies Andes; higher frequency and distribution of forest fires; through saline intrusion in many of the smaller islands the spread of tropical disease vectors into the Andes as well as leading to flooding of coastal zones. This is a piedmont; changes in agricultural productivity; and major concern, given that over 50 percent of the people impacts on coastal and watershed ecosystems. These in most Caribbean states reside within 2 km of the coast. changes will have major impacts on the region’s rich Resources critical to island and coastal populations— biodiversity as well as on human health and livelihoods. including beaches, wetlands, fresh water, fisheries, coral reefs and atolls, and wildlife habitat—are at risk. The biogeophysical implications of sea-level rise will vary greatly in different coastal zones around the Climate change will affect the physical and biological world depending on the nature of coastal landforms characteristics of coastal areas, modifying their ecosystem and ecosystems. For example, flooding conditions in structure and functioning. As a result, coastal nations the Pampas in the province of Buenos Aires would be face losses of marine biodiversity, fisheries, and shoreline exacerbated by any degree of sea-level rise because of habitats such as wetlands and mangroves. Increases in the reduced effectiveness of the natural drainage system. ocean temperatures cause corals to bleach and, under Some coastal areas in Central America and on the Atlantic sustained warm conditions, to die. Research in the coast of South America, such as the river deltas of the Caribbean shows that nearly 30 percent of warm-water Magdalena in Colombia, would be subject to inundation corals have disappeared since the beginning of the risk, as would the large, flat deltas of the Amazon, Orinoco, 1980s, a change largely due to increasingly frequent and Paraná rivers. Estuaries such as the Río de la Plata and intense periods of warm sea temperatures. The
— 13 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also resulting in Project in 1997, a regional enabling activity. It focused on an acidification of the oceans, affecting the calcification the vulnerability of the island nations of the Caribbean to of reef plants and animals, especially corals, and thus the impacts of climate change, with particular emphasis reducing the ability of reefs to grow vertically and keep on the region’s dependence on natural resources and pace with rising sea levels. The drowning of atolls and environmental services. This effort has been followed destruction of corals have long-term implications for by other regional and national planning programs and coastal zone protection, ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, projects, which are supported by a variety of funding and productivity of the tropical seas and fisheries. mechanisms, including GEF Adaptation funds and special climate and carbon funds (see Table 2.2). At the other end of the altitudinal spectrum, climate change is affecting mountain ecosystems. Glacial Some of the most threatened ecosystems globally are retreat in the Andes is occurring at an alarming rate. Mediterranean-type ecosystems such as those found Recent measurements show catastrophic declines in in the Cape Floral Kingdom, Mediterranean basin, and glacier volumes, which are likely to result in substantial southern Chile. The Cape Floristic Region (CFR) is the impacts on water flows to Andean valleys. At lower smallest of the world’s six floral kingdoms, protecting mountain altitudes, changes observed include loss unique Mediterranean-type vegetation known as fynbos. of water regulation, increased likelihood of flash It covers an area of 90,000 square kilometers and is the fires, and changes in ecosystem composition and only floral kingdom to be located entirely within the resilience. Moreover, as temperatures increase, there is geographical confines of a single country, South Africa. a substantive risk of recurring glacial overflows caused The CFR contains 9,600 species of vascular plants, many of by ice melting, placing large downstream populations them endemic; it has been identified as one of the world’s and infrastructure at imminent risk. Warming is also “hottest” biodiversity hotspots. The rich biodiversity of the affecting the moorlands, high-altitude ecosystems with CFR is under serious threat as a result of the conversion unique and abundantly diverse flora and fauna that of natural habitat to permanent agriculture and to are also a storage area for water and carbon in the soil. rangelands for cattle, sheep, and ostriches; inappropriate Recent research shows that climate change will be even fire management; rapid and insensitive infrastructure more pronounced in high-elevation mountain ranges, development; overexploitation of marine resources and which are warming faster than adjacent lowlands. wild flowers; and infestation by alien species. Some Hydrological and ecological changes of this magnitude important habitats have already been reduced by over 90 would result in a loss of unique biodiversity, as well as percent. Less than 5 percent of land in the lowlands enjoys a loss of many of the environmental goods and services any conservation status. Climate change will increase the provided by these mountains, especially water supply, threats to these threatened ecosystems and put increasing basin regulation, and associated hydropower potential. pressure on water resources, while increasing vulnerability to fire and the spread of invasive alien species. To face these increasing challenges, governments, communities, and civil society seek a better understanding The Cape Floristic Region is one of the world’s biodiversity of the anticipated effects of climate change, as well hotspots, one of the 34 most species-rich regions on Earth. as strategies to mitigate and adapt to its effects. The Together these hotspots harbor more than 75 percent of World Bank is assisting client countries to develop the most threatened mammals, birds and amphibians, both mitigation and adaptation strategies. The Bank’s yet they have already lost more than 85 percent of their involvement in adaptation was initiated in the Latin original habitat cover. These critical areas for conservation America region with the formulation of the Caribbean are also home to millions of people who are highly Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change (CPACC) dependent on healthy ecosystems for their livelihoods and
— 14 — Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Local Livelihoods: Challenges and Opportunities
Table 2.2 Adaptation Activities in the Latin America Region Region/ Country Project/Activity GEF-TF amount (US$m) Status Caribbean Caribbean Planning for Adaptation 5.8 GEF–Enabling Completed (CARICOM nations) to Climate Change activities Caribbean Mainstreaming Adaptation to 5.0 GEF–Enabling Under (CARICOM nations) Climate Change activities implementation Dominica, St. Lucia, and Implementation of Adaptation Measures 1.95 GEF–Strategic Priority Under St. Vincent and in Coastal Zones on Adaptation implementation The Grenadines Colombia Integrated National Adaptation Program 5.3 GEF–Strategic Priority Under on Adaptation implementation Central Andes Adaptation to impacts from Tropical 8.0 GEF–Strategic Priority In preparation Glacier Melt on Adaptation Trinidad and Tobago Nariva Wetlands restoration and 3.0 BioCarbon Fund In preparation Carbon Offset St. Lucia Reducing uncertainties from projected 0.3 Climate Change Under impacts of climate change Special Program implementation Colombia Measurement of climate trends and impacts 0.4 Climate Change Under in the central range of the Colombian Andes Special Program implementation Source: Vergara 2005
Box 2.2 Mainstreaming Conservation in the Cape Floristic Region
The C.A.P.E. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project is building institutional capacity and collaboration among multiple stakeholders— including government agencies, private landowners, and local communities—to mainstream biodiversity conservation into the area’s economic activities and enhance conservation of the Cape Floristic Region. The project is supporting the design of market-based mechanisms for conservation management, such as payment for environmental services, as well as micro-enterprise opportunities for conservation- related businesses, including small enterprises that improve livelihoods and social conditions for local communities. Biodiversity concerns are also being integrated into the activities of five watershed management agencies. On the protection side, management capacity will be strengthened for more effective management of protected areas; tourism development plans will be implemented; and stakeholders will receive direct and indirect benefits from protected areas. The project aims to expand the conservation area of the CFR by over 4,000 square kilometers, both in formal protected areas and through partnerships and conservancy agreements with private landowners. A primary focus is on land management for conservation and sustainable natural resource management in four mega-reserves, corridors from the mountains to the sea in the Cederberg, Kogelberg, Baviaanskloof, and along the Garden Route from the Tsitsikamma Mountains to the coast.
Protection of rare species in fragmented landscapes is being increased through conservation initiatives in the production landscapes through public-private partnerships, including the Biodiversity and Wine Initiative whereby winegrowers are setting aside important habitats for conservation within their vineyards. Other programs to encour- age more biodiversity-friendly agriculture and reduce water use are focussing on the potato, rooibos (herbal tea) and flower harvesting industries. These programs are closely linked to, and complement, government-led initiatives in the CFR to remove water-hungry invasive alien species through the Working for Water and Working for Wetlands programs. These programs help to maintain biodiversity in mountain, freshwater, and estuarine ecosystems resources while protecting important water sources and creating new employment opportunities.
— 15 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio well-being. Several of these hotspots will be especially the foundation for productive forests, fisheries, and vulnerable to climate change, including island systems agricultural crops. Climate change is already impacting in the Caribbean and Pacific, high mountain systems on ecosystems and livelihoods, but enhanced protection such as the Tropical Andes and Himalayas, and desert and management of biological resources can mitigate systems such as the Succulent Karoo (see Box 2.3). these impacts and contribute to solutions as nations and communities strive to adapt to climate change.
Protecting forests and other natural ecosystem can provide social, economic, and environmental Why Biodiversity Matters in a benefits, both directly through more sustainable management of biological resources and indirectly Changing World through protection of ecosystem services. How can improved biodiversity management enhance resilience to climate change and contribute The Bank is already a major global funder of biodiversity to adaptation strategies? Species and habitats are the initiatives, including support to 598 projects in over building blocks on which human livelihoods depend, 120 countries during the last 20 years. Many of those
Box 2.3 Richtersveld Community Biodiversity Conservation
The Succulent Karoo Biome covers 116,000 square kilometers of desert along the Atlantic coast of South Africa and southern Namibia and supports the world’s richest succulent flora. The transboundary area—comprising the Richtersveld, Gariep River, Ais-Ais, and the Fish River canyon—has a staggering 2,700 plant species, of which 560 are endemic. Compared to other hotspots, the vegetation in the Richtersveld remains relatively intact in spite of pressures from overgrazing and diamond mining. In recognition of these values, the Richtersveld Cultural and Botanical Landscape has recently been included in UNESCO’s World Heritage List.
The Succulent Karoo is now globally recognized as an example of a biodiversity hotspot under apparent and imminent threat from climate change. Projected time frames for onset of significant impacts vary from 30 to 50 years, although some botanists believe that early signs of global warming may be already evident in the higher mortalities of Aloe species in the Richtersveld. The implications of climate change on ecosystems and livelihoods are highly significant. Given expected climate change scenarios and the fact that 75 percent of the Richtersveld is under communal management, a GEF-funded project in the Richtersveld has opted for a three-tiered strategy for conservation action: (1) forward planning by integrating biodiversity into land use management planning; (2) improved reactive management and implementation of environmental management plans for livestock and mining; and (3) monitoring the effectiveness of land use planning and management in achieving conservation objectives (for example, monitoring the distribution of Aloe pillansii as an indicator species for climate change).
More specifically, the unique attributes of the Richtersveld make the region highly suitable as an international ecological research location for the study of global climate change. The South African research community is currently engaged in the development of a network of long-term ecological research sites that act as ecological observatories for change in ecosystems. In this context, the people of the Richtersveld are in the process of forming research partnerships to study global climate change. Specific attention will be given to design a protected area network resilient to species loss. Maintaining ecological connectivity and the prevention of habitat degradation are essential “lines of defense” against the impacts of climate change.
— 16 — Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Local Livelihoods: Challenges and Opportunities projects are already promoting sound natural resource are being conserved through transboundary projects management that could contribute to mitigation and in regions such as Central Asia and MesoAmerica, as adaptation through maintaining and restoring natural well as by planning and establishing new protected ecosystems, improving land and water management, and areas within a mosaic of other improved management protecting large blocks of natural habitats across altitudinal systems in the extensive forest wilderness areas gradients. Improved protection of high biodiversity of Brazil and Russia. A notable feature of many of forests, grasslands, wetlands, and other natural habitats these programs is the increasing involvement of provides benefits for biodiversity as well as carbon storage. local community organizations in implementation, Integrating protection of natural habitats and improved providing communities with a key stake in sustainable management of natural and agricultural resources resource management and biodiversity conservation. into adaptation plans can contribute to cost-effective strategies for reducing vulnerability to climate change. Protected areas, and the natural habitats within them, can protect watersheds and regulate water flow, prevent soil erosion, influence rainfall regimes and local climate, conserve renewable harvestable resources and genetic reservoirs, and protect breeding stocks, natural pollinators, Protected Areas: Meeting the and seed dispersers, which maintain ecosystem health. Floodplain forests and coastal mangroves act as safety Challenges of Conservation and barriers against natural hazards such as floods and hurricanes, while natural wetlands filter pollutants Climate Change and serve as nurseries for local fisheries. Although Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity ecosystem services are rarely credited in national conservation and a valuable buffer against the impacts of accounts, many protected areas can be justified on the climate change. Around the world the World Bank Group basis of traditional economic cost-benefit criteria. A is supporting the strengthening of protected area systems series of Bank-supported publications produced by the and innovative models of management and financing World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) present compelling to ensure their sustainability. Projects include activities arguments for the role protected areas can play in the such as conservation planning and establishment provision of water services and other services that help of new protected areas and biological corridors (for to mitigate the impacts of environmental change. example, in Georgia, Ghana, Central America, and Brazil); improved management of “paper parks” and Although most protected areas are established primarily existing protected areas (India, Pakistan, Madagascar, for their biodiversity values, many provide other Uganda, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Russia); control of invasive ecosystem services, including watershed protection exotic plants (Mauritius, Seychelles, and South Africa); and provision of high quality water; carbon storage protection and restoration of wetlands and other native and sequestration; and coastal protection and reducing habitats (Bulgaria, Croatia, and Indonesia); promoting vulnerability to disasters such as floods, drought, and community management of terrestrial and marine other natural hazards. The Amazon Region Protected protected areas, indigenous reserves, sacred groves, and Areas Program (ARPA), for instance, is assisting the clan conservation areas (Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, government of Brazil to establish new protected areas Indonesia, Peru, Papua New Guinea, and Samoa); and in the Amazon (see Box 2.4). With new emphasis on promoting mechanisms to ensure sustainable finance for the role of standing forests as carbon stores, Brazil is protected areas and conservation (Bhutan, Madagascar, increasingly promoting the ARPA model as a response Tanzania, and Peru). Large areas of natural habitat to climate change as well as biodiversity conservation.
— 17 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 2.4 Amazon Rainforest Protected Areas System (ARPA): A Storehouse for Carbon and Biodiversity
The ARPA program has been supporting the creation and implementation of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon, a major biodiversity wilderness area and carbon sink. ARPA has created 22.28 million hectares of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon since 2000, surpassing its first phase target of 18 million hectares. ARPA also supported strengthened management of an additional 8.65 million hectares of protected areas existing before 2000. With these 30.93 million hectares of biodiversity-rich forests—a mosaic of state, provincial, private, and indigenous reserves—ARPA is the biggest protected area program globally. Plans for the future are even more ambitious—to create a system of well-managed parks and other protected areas, including extractive and indigenous reserves, that together encompass some 193,000 square miles, an area surpassing in size the entire U.S. National Park system.
ARPA was established to protect biodiversity, but the mosaic of protected areas contributes to both Brazilian and global efforts to fight climate change through avoided deforestation. The carbon stock in ARPA reserves is estimated at 4.5 billion tons of carbon, with potential reductions in emissions estimated at 1.8 billion tons of carbon. This role is recognized in the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
The ARPA program has tested and demonstrated the value of public-private partnerships and different institutional models, both in implementation of the overall program and management arrangements at individual forest sites. The program funding is not disbursed through the government but through an NGO (the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund, or FUNBIO), which allows greater flexibility and innovation to improve operational effectiveness and creation of accounts that are co-managed by protected area managers in the field for small-scale service payments and purchases. A new trust fund to finance the recurrent costs to manage these areas has been created and capitalized up to $20 million.
The innovative design of ARPA has mainstreamed biodiversity conservation into land use planning and management under the Amazon’s state governments and is now being replicated elsewhere. Many states are leveraging additional funds to support newly created federal and state areas. In addition, ARPA has been able to engage the private sec- tor of Brazil and European donors to provide large funds to support protected areas. The project has worked with WWF and many other NGOs. This makes it a unique collaborative and global effort to protect Amazon biodiversity. Innovative institutional arrangements through the FUNBIO Foundation are now being scaled up and replicated in other large-scale projects and programs, such as the newly approved National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project. In late 2007, FUNBIO also agreed with the state of Rio de Janeiro to develop a state environmental compensation fund and set up a program to support the state’s protected areas based on the ARPA experience.
Strengthened protection across large wilderness areas Corridors and Connectivity and initiatives to connect areas of natural habitats can Conservation biology confirms the need to protect serve a dual function, storing carbon and enhancing large areas of habitat and maintain connectivity conservation of threatened species. Transboundary between natural habitats and across altitudinal conservation efforts in the West Tien Shan in Central gradients. Climate change studies show that a large Asia foster international collaboration and cooperation part of the carbon being released into the climate across national boundaries, reducing disturbance is coming from stored carbon; that is, carbon from on fragile mountain grasslands and promoting deforestation, changed land uses, and soil disturbances. conservation of wide-ranging species (see Box 2.5).
— 18 — Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Local Livelihoods: Challenges and Opportunities
Box 2.5 Central Asia: Where the Mountains reach the Sky
Situated at a biological crossroads, the West Tien Shan, the westernmost range of the great Himalayan chain, is a biodiversity hotspot with some 3,000 recorded species of flora and fauna.
The mountain range is an area of high rainfall amid arid and semi-desert plains and steppes, covering a variety of ecosystems, from glaciers to deserts. These mountains support unique and globally significant communities of threatened species such as snow leopard, white-clawed bear, and Central Asian mountain goat and argali. The region is also a center for the wild relatives of commercially important horticultural and agricultural plants—including apples, walnuts, apricots, and tulips—and many other endemic species. These ecosystems are under threat from overuse of natural resources, poaching, overgrazing, and illegal logging. The dismantling of the Soviet Union created new challenges for managing this transboundary region and new pressures on the protected areas and surrounding landscapes as the populations of the newly independent republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan struggled to make a living.
A tri-national transboundary conservation project between 2000 and 2006 provided support for key protected areas—including Besh-Aral, Sary-Chelek, Akus-Dzhabagly, and Chatkal—through a mix of investments in capacity building, community awareness, education, research, and monitoring. Significant investments in infrastructure provided tangible benefits such as improved facilities for protected areas staff, including offices, “cordon” houses (rangers’ houses), small nature museums, road rehabilitation, vehicles, horses, and equipment for rangers. Five new protected areas were established covering more than 500,000 hectares. Combined with training and management plans, this has significantly improved the management effectiveness of protected areas and led to increased numbers of protected species. A Small Grants Program provided financial and technical assistance to buffer zone communi- ties and community-based organizations to finance demand-driven activities in sustainable agriculture, alternative livelihoods—for example, honey, medicinal plants, and tourism—and alternative energy systems.
A new Tien Shan Ecosystems Development Project will promote further protection for the juniper and walnut forests and other key mountain habitats. The project will cover Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan and benefit from funds through the GEF and BioCarbon Fund in recognition of the important role that mountain ecosystems play in biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
Fragmentation of habitats reduces the opportunity NGOs to complement other Bank projects, which have for species movements and dispersal, a factor that provided support for site-based conservation of tigers will become increasingly important to species survival and other threatened wildlife in key protected areas. with climate change. Already, many threatened and charismatic species will not survive without adequate protection of large and connected landscapes. This is especially true for wide-ranging species and migratory species—such as elephants, large herbivores, and migratory birds—and for the large carnivores at the Managing Marine Resources head of the food chain. A new Bank-led initiative to Oceans are substantial reservoirs of carbon, with promote tiger conservation in critical large landscapes approximately 50 times more carbon than is presently was launched on June 9, 2008 by the president of the in the atmosphere. New research indicates that marine World Bank Group, Robert Zoellick (see Box 2.6). This vertebrates may also sequester carbon at depth. Although initiative is a new partnership with governments and marine and coastal ecosystems, including coral reefs
— 19 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 2.6 Global Tiger Initiative: An Umbrella Species for Conservation
The Global Tiger Initiative (GTI), launched by the Bank and other partners including the GEF and members of the International Tiger Coalition, is aimed at arresting and reversing a dangerous decline of wild tiger populations (see http://www.worldbank.org/tigers). Tigers once ranged in an arc stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Indonesian islands; today, they occupy only 7 percent of that original area. Under threat across their range, they are currently found in 14 countries—from the prey-rich grasslands of northern India, through the mangrove swamps of Bangladesh, to the forests of East Asia and Sumatra. As Asia’s largest top predator, the tiger is the region’s most important and charismatic umbrella species. The health of tiger populations is a useful indicator of the health, effectiveness, and sustainability of the region’s protected area networks and other conservation efforts, including efforts to combat poaching and the illegal wildlife trade. To maintain viable populations, effective conservation measures are required both within and beyond protected area boundaries to maintain biological corridors and tiger habitats within the broader production landscape. Conservation scientists have identified 76 Tiger Conservation Landscapes (TCLs) across the tiger’s current range. Many of these critical forests and grasslands are also important carbon stores.
Under the Global Tiger Initiative, the World Bank committed to work with the tiger range states and other partners to ensure the long-term conservation of the tiger. Specifically, the Bank will support a five-point agenda to further the GTI, including:
44 Reviewing, through the Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), Bank projects in tiger habitats 44 Facilitating country workshops to develop new models of conservation 44 Reviewing existing efforts and strategies to address illegal tiger trade 44 Exploring and developing new funding mechanisms for tiger conservation 44 Providing WBG support to host a Tiger Summit in 2010.
Carbon markets may be a potential new mechanism for supporting conservation of important tiger habitats in tropical forests.
and coastal wetlands, are important carbon sinks, the Caribbean through monitoring stations in the they are also especially sensitive to climate change. Bahamas, Belize, and Jamaica. Studies confirmed the deteriorating state of coral reefs in the Caribbean and Coral reefs are some of the most species-rich and the need to set up marine protected areas. The global productive of all ecosystems, but are very sensitive Coral Reef Targeted Research Project is providing the to changes in temperature. Even slight increases in scientific underpinning for management practices seasonal maximum sea surface temperatures are to adapt reef and fisheries management to address expected to affect coral reefs, while prolonged warming the threats arising from global warming. Regional working groups have been established to monitor will kill sensitive corals. Increases in CO2 and sea acidity will affect calcification and reduce the ability coral reefs and investigate the impacts of climate of reefs to grow vertically as sea levels rise. A GEF- change and appropriate management responses. funded project—Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change (CPACC)—provided information Programs such as the MesoAmerican Barrier Reef Project on the bleaching of corals caused by exposure to and Coral Reef Management (COREMAP) in Indonesia high temperatures and explored the ecological have recognized the important links between sources and economic consequences for the economies of and sinks, with marine reserves protecting vital fish
— 20 — Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Local Livelihoods: Challenges and Opportunities
Box 2.7 Marine Protected Areas, Fish Populations and Climate Change
Bank-led sector work on marine management determined that marine protected areas provide the following benefits to biodiversity conservation and carbon-sequestration.
44 Marine protected areas (MPAs), regardless of their size, lead to increases in density, biomass, individual size, and diversity in all fish functional groups in communities ranging from tropical coral reefs to temperate kelp forests. 44 The diversity of communities and the average size of the fish within a reserve are between 20 and 30 percent higher relative to unprotected areas. The density of organisms is roughly double in reserves, while the biomass of organisms is nearly triple. The abundance and average size of many larger carnivorous fishes increase within protected areas. 44 Protecting areas from fishing leads to rapid increases in abundance, average body size, and biomass of exploited species. It also leads to increased diversity of species and recovery of habitats from fishing disturbance. Even relatively small reserves can produce regionally significant replenishment of exploited fish populations. 44 The positive effects of MPAs on conserving fish populations and their habitat effectively enlarges the marine carbon sink. 44 Networks of no-take MPAs can (1) help recover fish populations; (2) eliminate mortality of non-targeted species within protected areas due to bycatch, discards, and ghost fishing; (3) protect reserve habitats from damage by fishing gear; (4) increase the probability that rare and vulnerable habitats, species, and communities are able to persist; and (5) improve the quantity of carbon taken out by the marine sink.
nurseries on which local communities depend. Elsewhere, populations for recovery of more low-lying habitats. projects in Central America, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Mountain ecosystems play a role in influencing rainfall Vietnam focus on integrated coastal zone management regimes and climate at local and regional levels, and enhancing protection of mangroves, coastal wetlands, helping to contain global warming through carbon and off-shore reefs that sustain local fisheries and thriving sequestration and storage in soils and plant biomass. . tourism industries, but also offer increased protection from sea level rise and extreme weather events. Over the last decade, an increasing number of World Bank projects have been making explicit linkages between sustainable use of mountain and forest ecosystems, biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration and watershed values associated with erosion control, clean Valuing ecosystem services water supplies, and flood control. Bank watershed projects in the Middle East incorporate natural forests and endemic Protecting forests and other natural ecosystems riparian woodlands as part of micro-catchment vegetation can provide social, economic, and environmental management with local communities, including the benefits, both directly through more sustainable Lakhdar watershed in Morocco, the northern Yemeni management of biological resources and indirectly wadis, and Turkey’s Eastern Anatolia Basin. In China, through protection of ecosystem services. Mountain mountain forests are being increasingly recognized for habitats, for instance, bestow multiple ecosystem, soil their role in clean water supply, water regulation, and flood conservation, and watershed benefits. They are often control. The China Forest Protection Project is focusing on centers of endemism, Pleistocene refuges, and source mountain and upper watershed forests and reallocating
— 21 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 2.8 COREMAP: Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management in Indonesia
The Indonesian archipelago is a center of coral and marine diversity with some of the most species-rich reef ecosystems in the world. The fisheries they support are an important source of food and economic opportunities for about 67,500 coastal villages throughout the country, a source which has been increasingly threatened and overexploited in the last decade. For this reason, the government of Indonesia initiated a multi-donor Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) in 1998. COREMAP is a 15-year national program spread over three phases. As one of the main donors, the World Bank helped to finance efforts to improve the management of coral reef ecosystems in several pilot sites, including the national marine park at Taka Bone Rate, the world’s third largest atoll. Other pilot efforts in the Padeido islands, Papua, and Nusa Tenggara focused on supporting community management of coral reefs.
The first phase of COREMAP highlighted some of the challenges facing coral reefs and the communities that depend upon them. Many of the coral reef ecosystems in Indonesia and the small-scale fisheries they support have reached a level and mode of exploitation where the only way to increase future production and local incomes is to protect critical habitats and reduce fishing effort. There is now a growing body of empirical evidence suggesting that marine reserves can rejuvenate depleted fish stocks in a matter of years when they are managed collaboratively with the resource users, and form the core of a wider multi-use marine protected area. For the second phase of COREMAP, the government of Indonesia has made a policy shift toward marine conservation and protected areas as an important tool in sustainable management of coral reef ecosystems and the small-scale fisheries they support. Through a participatory planning process with communities, COREMAP II will help to establish marine reserves within larger marine protected areas (MPAs) to ensure rejuvenation of coral reefs and the small-scale reef fisheries on which those communities depend.
A six-year, $80 million program will be implemented in 12 coastal districts, including 1,500 coastal villages and more than 500,000 residents. The centerpiece of these efforts will be collaboratively-managed marine reserves, many within existing national parks and MPAs of recognized global value. The government has committed to a target of 30 percent of the total area of coral reefs in each participating district being set aside as collaboratively managed and fully protected marine reserves by the year 2030. A key component of the program will be a learning network linking key marine sites and conservation efforts throughout the archipelago to exchange lessons learned and expertise. This is an ambitious program, and places Indonesia as one of the global leaders in the marine and coral reef conservation effort.
forests for their watershed and biodiversity protection Madre in Chiapas to support activities that protect the functions as well as more sustainably managed production. area’s ecosystem services, especially water production. In Ecuador an integrated watershed management The Bank has been a leader in piloting payments for project is being prepared with a specific component to ecosystem services (PES). In Mexico, Bank projects capture payment for environmental services provided have helped to establish payment systems to reduce by Andean forests. Meanwhile, Costa Rica is launching logging in the Monarch Butterfly Reserve to protect a second Bank/GEF project to build on the experience important butterfly habitat. With support from the and success of early Ecomarkets projects in promoting Mexican Nature Conservation Fund, an endowment biodiversity on privately-owned lands (see Box 2.10). has been established for El Triunfo Reserve in the Sierra
— 22 — Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Local Livelihoods: Challenges and Opportunities
Box 2.9 Tajikistan Community Watershed Project: Improving Management in Mountain Ecosystems
Tajikistan is a small (171,000 km2) and highly mountainous country bordered by the Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and China. Mountains cover 90 percent of the country. Tajikistan has the greatest elevational range in the region, from 300m along the Syr Darya River to 7,495m at Mount Samani, the highest peak in the former Soviet Union. This altitudinal range is reflected in a rich diversity of natural ecosystems, including steppe and desert, forests (spruce, juniper, walnut, pistachio, and tugai), mountain meadows, and high mountain lakes.
Land degradation in Tajikistan is a common threat to rural livelihoods and biodiversity alike. Deforestation for fuelwood, livestock overgrazing, and unsustainable irrigation practices have led to erosion, salinization, and re- duced productivity of mountain soils. The degradation and loss of biodiversity has direct adverse impacts on rural households. The new watershed management project aims to improve rural livelihoods while conserving fragile mountain lands and ecosystems. Through a participatory approach, local communities will identify and implement priority investments. Examples of eligible investments include:
44 Planting trees—emphasizing economically and biologically important species such as walnuts, pistachios, fruit trees, and berry bushes—on slope fields, coupled with appropriate soil and moisture conservation measures, such as “mini-terracing,” using trees as natural hedges and contour drainage channels 44 Improving pasture management and reducing overgrazing through restoring watering points in remote pastures, fencing, re-seeding as appropriate, and introduction of improved grazing management 44 Building small-scale infrastructure to control soil erosion and gullying and reduce siltation 44 Supporting income-generating activities and small-scale cottage industries such as production of dried fruits and vegetables; bee-keeping; silk worm rearing and cocoon production; milk and wool production and processing; and crafts.
Box 2.10 Valuing Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica
The Mainstreaming Market-Based Instruments for Environmental Management Project enhances the provision of environmental services and secures their long-term sustainability through a scaled-up payment for environmental services system (PSA) in Costa Rica. Since 2000, the Costa Rican program has been supported by the World Bank through the Bank/GEF-financed Ecomarkets Project. The initial project reached, or exceeded, all key project perfor- mance indicators. For example, 120,000 ha have been incorporated into the priority areas selected for biodiversity conservation by the Ecomarkets Project, exceeding the original target of 50,000 ha. These contracts promote conser- vation on privately-owned lands within Tortuguero, La Amistad Caribe, and Osa Peninsula Conservation Areas and an additional 70,000 hectares contracted on privately owned lands within other high priority conservation areas.
Costa Rica’s priorities are to develop and implement new financing sources for the PSA Program, including introduction of a new water tariff and verified emission reductions sales. These financing sources will cover most of the program’s long-term financing requirements for national priorities. The second phase project focuses on ensuring a continued flow of funds for sustainable natural resource management and rural development through a water tariff, the sales of verified emission reductions, and a dedicated tax on the consumption of fossil fuels. To ensure a continued flow of funds to achieve global environment objectives, the project will help to create an endowment fund—the Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund—to conserve biodiversity of global significance through the PSA Program.
— 23 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
— 24 — 3 Mitigating Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
limate change is already impacting on Mitigation involves reducing greenhouse gas emissions natural systems, weather events, and crop from energy and biological sources or enhancing the productivity. Even with immediate action sinks of greenhouse gases. Biological mitigation of Cto reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some impacts greenhouse gases can occur through (a) conservation are inevitable. Figure 3.1 shows the likely impacts of existing carbon pools (for example, avoiding on global systems under different climate change deforestation); (b) sequestration by increasing the scenarios. Countries need to act now to mitigate size of carbon pools (e.g., through afforestation and climate change and to prepare for the future. reforestation); and (c) substitution of fossil fuel energy
Figure 3.1 Likely Changes to Earth Systems depending on Mitigation Activities Undertaken.
Likely change Likely change with Likely change without already “baked in” successful significant action on mitigation action mitigation
Global temperature change (relative to pre-industrial) 0ºC 1ºC 2ºC 3ºC 4ºC 5ºC
Food Falling crop yields in many areas, particularly developing regions
Possible rising yields in some Falling yields in many high altitude regions developed regions
Water Small mountain glaciers Significant decrease in water Sea level rise threat- disappear — water supplies availability in many areas, including ens major cities threatened in several areas Mediterranean and Southern Africa
Ecosystems Extensive damage Rising number of species face extinction to Coral Reefs
Extreme Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves Weather Events Risk of Abrupt and Increasing risk of dangerous feedbacks and abrupt, large-scale Major Irreversible shifts in the climate system Changes
Source: Adapted from IPCC 2007.
— 25 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio by use of modern biomass. The estimated upper with careful selection of species and site selection, with limit of the global potential of biological mitigation planting of native species and efforts to accommodate the options through afforestation, reforestation, avoided range of needs of native wildlife. Plantations or natural deforestation, and agriculture, grazing land, and forest reforestation may contribute to the dispersal capabilities management is estimated at 100 GtC by the year of some species by extending areas of forest habitat or 2050, which is equivalent to about 10–20 percent of providing connectivity among habitat patches in a formerly projected fossil-fuel emissions during that period . fragmented landscape. Even single-species plantations may provide some benefits to local biodiversity if they Land-use, land-use change, and forestry activities incorporate features such as retaining borders of native (LULUCF) can play an important role in reducing net forest along river banks or protecting natural wetlands. greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. Bank In contrast, planting with fast-growing exotic species, funding supports conservation and more sustainable or species with known potential to become invasive, management of the world’s forests, both tropical and is likely to have few benefits for biodiversity, but may temperate. These projects produce net benefits for provide other immediate benefits by reducing soil erosion biodiversity and climate change mitigation. Russia, or providing a ready source of fuel wood and timber. for example, contains about 22 percent of the world’s forests, including 25 percent of all old-growth forests. Plantations of native tree species will support more These 770 million hectares of forests make up the largest biodiversity than exotic species. Plantations of mixed share of temperate and boreal forests among World tree species will usually support more biodiversity than Bank client countries and harbor important endemic monocultures, especially if designed to allow for the biodiversity. Because of Russia’s large size and forest colonization and establishment of diverse understory cover, there is a compelling need to balance economic plant communities. Since loss of soil carbon occurs for development in the forest sector with sustainable several years following harvesting and replanting—due management and conservation of biodiversity. to the exposure of soil, increased leaching and runoff, Improving forest and fire management in the Russian and reduced inputs from litter—long-rotation plantations Far East is not only helping to protect the region’s rich in which vegetation and soil carbon is allowed to biodiversity, including tigers and their prey base in accumulate are more beneficial than short-rotation Khabarovsk Kray, but is retaining important carbon plantations. Short-rotation forests, with their simpler stores in the boreal forests and underlying peat lands. structure, foster lower species richness than longer-lived forests, but products from short-rotation plantations may alleviate harvesting pressure in primary forests.
Afforestation and Reforestation
Under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism, most mitigation activities focus on increased sequestration of carbon through afforestation and reforestation projects. Afforestation and reforestation projects will impact on biodiversity depending on the land use/ecosystem being replaced and management applied. The reforestation of degraded lands has the potential to produce the greatest benefits for biodiversity, especially
— 26 — Mitigating Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
Box 3.1 Reforestation under the BioCarbon Fund
Brazil: Reforestation around Hydro Reservoirs
This project is restoring native vegetation cover on approximately 5,576 hectares of land around four reservoirs created by hydroelectric plants in the state of Sao Paulo. Planting a mix of at least 80 native species will regenerate forested areas, protect the recreational use of the area, and improve the value of the lands for tourism. Many of the targeted sites are connected to existing forested areas, and link to riverine habitats. Restoration of forest cover will increase critical habitats and create vital wildlife corridors, connecting the newly forested lands with existing conservation areas.
China: Pearl River Watershed Management
This project is reforesting 4,000 hectares in the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, which includes half of the Pearl River basin and is an area of high biodiversity value. The sites selected for planting are shrub land, grassland, and areas with less than 30 percent tree cover. Seventy-five percent of the species planted will be native. Eucalyptus, grown in China for a century, will make up most of the exotics. The restoration of the forests along the middle and upper reaches of the Pearl River will serve as a demonstration model for watershed management. The use of the carbon sequestered by a plantation as a “virtual” cash crop will generate income for local communities. As the first life-size LULUCF project in China, it will also test how afforestation activities can generate high-quality emission reductions in greenhouse gases that can be measured, monitored, and certified. The reforested land will restore forest connectivity between two nature reserves (Mulun and Jiuwandashan reserves in Huanjiang County) and provide a wildlife corridor for animal movements.
Kenya: Green Belt Movement
This project is reforesting 4,000 hectares of degraded public and private lands with high community access in the Aberdare Range and Mount Kenya watersheds. These forests host a high number of threatened fauna species and are internationally recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA). Although many of these forests are officially protected as a reserve, they are threatened by illegal logging and cultivation. The project will pay local communities and provide them with the technology and knowledge to reforest and manage these lands. Communities will be organized into Community Forest Associations (CFAs) that will develop management plans. The long term goal is to use the re-grown forest in a sustainable manner for a variety of products, including fuel wood, charcoal, timber, medicinal, and other uses. Planting of trees on lands around the reserve forests is expected to reduce pressure on remaining natural forests, and the planting of native species will enrich local biodiversity.
and Brazil together, for instance, currently account for Conserving Carbon Stores approximately 54 percent of all emissions from forest loss. Reducing Deforestation Most of Indonesia’s GHG emissions have come from About 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) deforestation and land clearance, including clearing and emissions are caused by deforestation and land use burning of peat swamp forests for agricultural production changes globally. The problem is especially acute in and oil palm production. If current rates of deforestation in tropical regions, which include some of the world’s most Indonesia remain the same through 2012, it is estimated biologically rich countries. In tropical regions, emissions that emissions from this deforestation would equal almost attributable to deforestation and other land clearance are 40 percent of the annual emission reduction targets set much higher, up to 40 percent of national totals. Indonesia for Annex 1 countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Clearly
— 27 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 3.2 Forest Conservation in Aceh, Indonesia
In December 2004 a tsunami struck Aceh province, causing a tremendous humanitarian crisis, especially along the west coast. In this narrow coastal belt, communities and agricultural lands border directly on protected forests and the karst mountain ranges of the Gunung Leuser National Park and Ecosystem in the south and the Ulu Masen Forest Complex in the north. Over two-thirds of the province remains under forests. Even within Indonesia, a mega-diversity country, this area is unique, comprising the largest remaining contiguous forested area (3.3 million ha) with the richest assemblage of biodiversity in Southeast Asia, including tigers, elephants, rhinos, and orangutans. These areas also provide valuable ecological services needed for Aceh’s recovery, including water supply, flood prevention, erosion mitigation, and climate regulation.
The post-disaster reconstruction effort raised concerns about how the enormous amount of timber needed for rebuilding would be obtained without endangering these forests. In August 2005, a long-awaited peace accord between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement effectively removed the barrier from logging activities. Two environmental NGOs, Leuser International Foundation (LIF) and Flora and Fauna International (FFI), both with a long history of working in Aceh, prepared a proposal to the Multi Donor Fund (MDF) for the Aceh Forest and Environment Project (AFEP) to ensure the protection of Aceh’s forests.
The main objectives of AFEP are to a) protect the environmental services provided by Aceh’s coastal and terres- trial forest ecosystems during and beyond the reconstruction, and b) mainstream environmental concerns in the reconstruction process. AFEP produces accurate and timely information on the state of the province’s forests, and is building the capacity of the provincial forest and conservation administration. The project is helping develop a model for community-based sustainable forest management, and fostering integration of forest and conservation issues into the overall land-use planning process through development of provincial, district, and sub-district-level spatial plans. Forest monitoring is carried out at three mutually supportive levels: through remote sensing, aerial surveys, and ground-level community monitoring teams trained and hired by the project. Aceh’s Governor Irwandi declared a logging moratorium to provide a time-out, during which new policies and programs can be formulated and implemented. The project’s flexible approach to post-disaster, post-conflict reconstruction has benefited from local participation, including collaboration with religious leaders to include environmental and conservation messages into mosque sermons.
The project’s flexibility has also allowed it to be a part of REDD discussions. Supporting the governor’s plan to implement and benefit from REDD projects in Aceh, AFEP arranged a provincial REDD workshop in early October 2007, which provided an opportunity to discuss the REDD concept with district heads, forest communities, and other stakeholders. The project is also assisting the government of Aceh in developing and promoting an Aceh REDD pilot project plan, which has been submitted for international certification against Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standards.
reducing deforestation and forest degradation in key improved forest protection and management. Slowing biodiversity countries affords exciting new opportunities deforestation and forest degradation can provide to address climate change and conservation. substantial biodiversity benefits in addition to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and preserving ecosystem The 13th Conference of the parties to the UN Convention services. The largest biological potential is projected to on Climate Change in Bali in December 2007 called for be in subtropical and tropical regions, but protecting greater action on avoided deforestation to provide new temperate habitats, especially peat lands and mires, would opportunities for rewarding nations and communities for also protect important carbon stores and wetland diversity.
— 28 — Mitigating Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
Box 3.3 Wetlands, Livelihoods and Climate Change in the Nile Basin
Wetlands and their biodiversity are the main source of livelihoods in the Nile Basin contributing to both ecosystem survival and hydrological replenishment of the waters of the Nile. The Nile Basin Initiative through its Shared Vision Project – specifically basin-wide activities under the Nile Transboundary Environmental Action Project (NTEAP) – is promoting the wise use of wetland habitats and species in the Nile Basin region, as important resources for livelihoods, biological wealth, and climate modulation. NTEAP is mainly investing in increasing knowledge and awareness and fostering professional networks. It is creating a better basin-wide understanding of the value of wetlands as a key component in transboundary management of biodiversity.
NTEAP has identified key wetlands and biodiversity hotspots that are currently not adequately protected and man- aged. Knowledge about wetlands and their biodiversity is crucial to understanding their contribution in supporting both livelihoods and climate modulation, including their role as indicators of climate change. NTEAP supports the sharing of knowledge and identification of threats for managing sites in the Nile system as a key component in transboundary management of wetlands and biodiversity. A better understanding of the linkages between wetlands, biodiversity and downstream benefits will promote the conservation of natural habitats. Sensitization efforts sup- ported by NTEAP include education in schools and colleges, sensitization of policy makers, and communities who live with, and utilize, the resources.
The Nile Basin Initiative recognizes the importance of integrating the potential effects of climate change into basin- wide planning efforts. The Nile Council of Ministers has recently approved a concept note to further evaluate the effects climate change may have on natural resources and their use in the Nile Basin.
Many Bank projects focusing on forest management and degradation of native forests in the region. These activities protected areas are already contributing to maintaining can generate carbon credits for the voluntary market. carbon stores in natural habitats. The Bank is now also developing and testing new financing mechanisms to pilot modalities for reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). The Ankeniheny-Mantadia- …maintaining peat lands, marshes, and wetlands Zahamena Corridor Restoration and Conservation Carbon Project is an innovative initiative to conserve and restore Ecosystems are not all equal either in their value the threatened humid forests of Madagascar. The project for biodiversity conservation or their role in carbon is promoting ecological restoration of around 3,020 storage and other ecosystem services. Wetlands provide hectares on degraded land along the buffer zone of two many ecosystem services that are critical to reduce the national parks: the Analamazaotra Special Reserve and vulnerability of communities to climate change in general Mantadia National Park complex. These reforestation and to extreme weather events in particular. Protecting activities are generating carbon credits that will be used existing wetlands and restoring degraded wetlands to finance sustainable livelihood activities in the region, provides an opportunity to enhance mitigation actions. such as fruit tree gardens and fuel wood plantations, aiming at increasing local farmers’ income, while at the Peat lands and marshes contain large stores of carbon. In same time reducing pressures on native forests. It is also recent decades, drainage and conversion to agricultural one of the first concrete REDD experiences. Through the lands and climate change has changed peatlands from creation of a new protected area (site de conservation), a global carbon sink to a global carbon source. Avoiding the project will reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation of peatlands, swamps, and wetlands is
— 29 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 3.4 Trinidad and Tobago: Nariva Wetland Restoration and Carbon Offsets
The Nariva Protected Area (7,000 ha) is one of the most important protected areas in Trinidad and Tobago. Its varied mosaic of vegetation communities includes tropical rain forest, palm forests, mangroves, and grass savannahs. However, these ecosystems have been threatened by hydrological changes arising from a newly constructed water reservoir upstream and more than 10 years (1985–96) of illegal forest clearing by rice farmers.
A project to restore the Nariva wetlands provides a unique opportunity to combine the goals of greenhouse gas mitigation with adaptation needs. The project will support carbon sequestration through the reforestation and restoration of the natural drainage regime of the Nariva wetlands ecosystem. Restoration of the wetlands will strengthen their natural buffer service for inland areas, representing an adaptation measure to anticipated increases in weather variability.
Carbon finance resources, through the BioCarbon Fund, will purchase the carbon credits, which in turn will make the restoration work viable. The project includes four activities:
� Restoration of natural hydrology to accelerate the restoration of Nariva’s ecological functions. The hydrologic rehabilitation involves active management of the landscape to ensure the survival of the existing forest as well as reforested areas. � Between 1,000 and 1,500 hectares are being reforested with native terrestrial and aquatic species. Mechanical and chemical treatment of invasive species may be required to open areas for more natural plant communities. � A Fire Management Program will support the newly restored vegetation. � A monitoring plan will record the response of reforestation activities and monitor biodiversity through key species. a beneficial mitigation option. The lowland forests of …restoring grasslands Sumatra are some of the most endangered habitats on Grasslands and natural pastures are capable of fixing Earth. With current rates of deforestation, it has been significant amounts of carbon in the soil and vegetation estimated that they could all be lost by the year 2010. cover; well-managed grasslands constitute a significant Working against this trend, Wetlands International has sink of global carbon. Changes in grassland vegetation due been collaborating with the provincial government and to overgrazing, conversion to crop land, desertification, the Indonesian Conservation Department (PHKA) to fire, fragmentation, and introduction of non-native establish a new 205,000 hectare national park in South species affect their carbon storage capacity, and may Sumatra. The Sembilang Park adjoins Berbak National in some cases even lead to a net source of C0 . For Park, Indonesia’s first Ramsar site. Together, the two 2 example, it has been found that grasslands may lose parks will protect some of Sumatra’s most important 20 to 50 percent of their soil organic carbon content remaining lowland forests, including large tracts of peat through cultivation, soil erosion, and land degradation. swamp forests (an important carbon store) and the most important mangroves in western Indonesia. Improved protection will provide benefits to conservation of large …improving ecosystem services mammals (tiger, Sumatran rhino, and tapir), migratory Conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of birds, and breeding populations of rare storks. It will also ecosystem structure and function are important climate benefit local economies, as the mangroves are major change mitigation strategies because genetically diverse spawning and nursery grounds for inshore fisheries. populations and species-rich ecosystems have a greater
— 30 — Mitigating Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity potential to adapt to climate change. While some natural example, grazing management, protected grasslands and pest-control, pollination, soil-stabilization, flood-control, set-aside areas, grassland productivity improvements, and water-purification, and seed-dispersal services can fire management) can enhance carbon storage in soils be replaced when damaged or destroyed by climate and vegetation while conserving biodiversity. Agroforestry change, technical alternatives may be costly even when systems also have the potential to sequester carbon, feasible. Conserving biodiversity (for example, genetic improve livelihoods, and provide functional links between diversity of food crops, trees, and livestock races) means forest fragments and other critical habitat as part of a that options are kept open to allow human societies to broad landscape management strategy for biodiversity adapt better to climate change. Promotion of on-farm conservation. Silvopastoral projects in Central America conservation of crop diversity may serve a similar function. have demonstrated the economic and ecological benefits of increasing tree cover in cattle pastures (see Box 3.7). Changing agricultural management activities can sequester carbon in soils. Conservation tillage and the use of erosion …protecting coral reefs control practices—which include water conservation structures, protection of native vegetation as filters for Coral reefs are important marine resources that are riparian zone management, and agroforestry shelterbelts under threat from climate change. They support rich for wind erosion—can reduce the displacement of soil biodiversity and provide nutrient cycling within the marine organic carbon and provide opportunities to increase environment. Their destruction signals a threat to the biodiversity. Improved management of grasslands (for ocean’s ability to store carbon. Since 1998, the impacts of
Box 3.5 Safeguarding Grasslands to Capture Carbon: Lessons from China
The vast area and wide distribution of China’s grasslands suggests that they could have widespread effects on regional climate and global carbon cycles. The Gansu and Xinjiang Pastoral Development project focuses on producing global environmental benefits by restoring biodiversity and increasing the productivity of grassland resources in the globally significant ecoregions of Tien Shan, Altai Shan, and Qilian Shan. These benefits will result from implementa- tion of participatory grassland management plans, especially changed grassland utilization through delaying and shortening the spring and summer grazing periods in the high mountain grasslands. Reduced grazing pressures will lead to increased species diversity, increased biomass productivity, and improved grazing conditions for wild ungulates, as well as herds of sheep and other livestock managed by local herders.
Reduced grazing pressure resulting from implementation of participatory grassland management plans will also provide significant carbon benefits. Improved pasture management practices will increase the amount of carbon entering the soil as plant residues, suppress the rate of soil carbon decomposition, and reduce soil loss due to overgrazing. The project promoted more intensive management of lowland pastures, with inputs of inorganic and organic fertilizers, as well as production of livestock foodstuffs to reduce pressure on mountain pastures. The project also implemented improved grazing management practices (such as rotational grazing), including community-based regulation of grazing intensity and frequency. The economic benefits of carbon sequestration were estimated using
the shadow price of C02 damages at $20 per ton of C02 per year (discounted at a 12 percent interest rate over the 20-year period), which is equivalent to $5.50 per ton of carbon. It was estimated that adoption of better management practices on the pastures would elicit a carbon gain of 0.1 to 0.5 Mg/ha/year, or about 3 to 15 tons of carbon per year, depending on the degree of pasture degradation. Over a 3- to 30-year period, carbon benefits from reduced grazing and improved management are expected to increase up to 50 tons per hectare.
— 31 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 3.6 Jordan: Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Jordan Rift Valley
The Jordan Rift Valley is an integral part of the Great Rift Valley and provides a globally critical land bridge between Africa, Europe, and Asia that supports a large variety of ecologically diverse habitats. Every year, millions of migrating birds follow these flyways between the continents, stopping to rest and feed along the way. The GEF-supported project aims to apply the principles of integrated ecosystem management to the existing land use master plan of the Jordan Rift Valley and establish a network of well-managed protected areas that meets local ecological, social, and economic needs.
Project implementation will rely on consultative planning and management procedures involving all relevant stakeholders. The project will establish a network of protected areas and special conservation areas defined under the land use planning framework, and develop management systems for these sites that become working models of integrated ecosystem management principles. Sustainable financing mechanisms for the protected areas will be strengthened through increased capitalization of $2 million for an existing endowment fund. Adoption of economi- cally viable, nature-based livelihood options by local communities in the protected areas and special conservation areas will reduce pressures on natural resources. Project management and implementation is being undertaken by the Jordanian Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature.
Box 3.7 Payments for Environmental Services to Protect Biodiversity and Carbon in Agricultural Landscapes
Protecting biodiversity in agricultural landscapes is important both in its own right and as a means to connect pro- tected areas, thus reducing their isolation. The challenge is finding ways to do so. A GEF-financed project—Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Approaches to Ecosystem Management—was implemented in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Colombia from 2002–08 as a pilot project to demonstrate and measure the effects of the introduction of payment incentives for environmental services to farmers. By the time it closed in January 2008, the project had clearly demonstrated that silvopastoral practices generate substantial benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and water services, and that payments for environmental services (PES) can induce substantial land use changes that benefit the environment.
Silvopastoral production systems (SPS), which combine trees with cattle production, provide an alternative to cur- rent livestock production practices and can help improve the sustainability of cattle production and farmer income, while providing an environment that is also more hospitable to biodiversity. SPS supported by the project resulted in substantial carbon sequestration, both directly (by sequestering carbon in trees) and indirectly (by inducing lower applications of nitrogen fertilizers and, through improved nutrition, reducing methane emissions from livestock). SPS can also act as an adaptation measure to climate change, as they incorporate deeply rooted, perennial, native and naturalized, multi-purpose, and timber tree species that are drought-tolerant and retain their foliage in the dry season. They provide large amounts of high quality fodder and shade that results in stable milk and beef production, maintains the animals’ condition, and secures farmers’ assets. Under extreme climate change conditions affecting temperatures and rainy seasons, cattle ranching in pastures without trees would be more vulnerable than in those with trees.
Based on the documented results of this pilot project, new projects are under preparation in Colombia and Nicaragua to scale up and adopt biodiversity-friendly SPS at a larger scale. Among other environmental and socioeconomic benefits, the program will help to address climate change and its consequences in the livestock sector.
— 32 — Mitigating Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
Box 3.8 Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on Ocean Ecosystems and Coastal Communities.
The International Year of the Reef 2008 is a worldwide campaign to raise awareness about the value and importance of coral reefs and threats to their sustainability, and to motivate people to take action to protect them. These threats include climate change, which is leading to widespread coral damage. The year 1998 witnessed an unprecedented climatic event in the world’s oceans when a strong El Niño-Southern Oscillation episode caused abnormally high sea surface temperatures and affected more than 16% of the world’s coral reefs. These events emphasized the urgent need to better protect natural resources and their ecosystem services, and to prepare coastal-dependent people to adapt to climate change. At the same time human population growth in tropical coastal zones is also causing tremendous use and transformation pressure that degrades and threatens coral reefs and associated resources.
The Coral Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management (CRTR) program is a proactive research and capacity building partnership designed to improve the scientific knowledge needed to strengthen management and policy to protect coral reefs. The CRTR is filling crucial knowledge gaps in targeted research areas such as Coral Bleaching, Connectivity, Coral Diseases, Coral Restoration and Remediation, Remote Sensing and Modeling and Decision Support. The CRTR partnership was formed to build capacity for management-driven research in countries where coral reefs are found, and to use this information to improve the management effectiveness of coral reefs and the welfare of the human communities that depend on them. The Program is working with stakeholders and local governments through its regional Centers of Excellence to increase awareness of the growing risks facing coral reefs from local and global sources, and the implications in economic and social terms for the tens of millions of people who depend on them for livelihoods, food security and coastal protection. Through capacity building CRTR is linking science to management, and translating research findings into an action agenda for managers and policy makers that can make a difference to the future of the world’s reefs and all who value them. While policymakers in
the international arena grapple with formulas and cost effective means to bring down CO2 emissions to well below 1990 levels over the next 50 years, the CRTR is putting local marine resource managers in a position to buy time for coral reefs. A number of interventions are addressing immediate threats to reef ecosystem health to increase resilience to changing ocean conditions associated with climate change.
climate change have become increasingly clear, and ad potential to mitigate climate change by reducing the ditional high ocean temperatures have occurred in various greenhouse gas intensity of energy production. However, ocean regions in 2000, 2002, 2005 (which experienced they require careful site selection and evaluation of likely the highest temperature in the Caribbean Basin in more impacts on habitats and wildlife. Large-scale hydropower than 100 years) and in 2007 in the South China Sea. development can also have high environmental and social Protecting coral reefs is a step towards maintaining costs such as changes in land use, disruption of migratory the oceans as a globally important carbon sink. pathways, and displacement of local communities. The ecosystem impacts of specific hydropower projects may be minimized depending on factors such as the type and condition of pre-dam ecosystems, type and operation of the dam (for example, water-flow management), and the depth, area, and length of the reservoir. Run-of- Investing in Alternative Energy the-river hydropower and small dams have generally Hydropower and other renewable energy sources such less impact on biodiversity than large dams, but the as wind and wave energy solutions have significant cumulative effects of many small units should be taken
— 33 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio into account. With careful planning, however, biodiversity can also benefit under new energy projects. Protection New Partnerships to Address of the forests around the Nam Theun 2 Dam in Lao Biodiversity and Climate Change PDR, and a 30-year conservation fund to manage the In collaboration with FAO and IUCN and support from watershed, is a critical factor in extending the lifespan IIED, the World Bank is supporting the implementation of of the hydropower generation facility (see Box 3.9).
Box 3.9 Nakai Nam Theun: Forest Conservation to Protect a Hydropower Investment in Lao PDR
The Nam Theun 2 hydropower project in central Lao PDR will inundate 450 square kilometers of the Nakai Plateau, including substantial areas of semi-natural forest habitat. To offset this impact, a Bank loan for the environment will provide an unprecedented level of support for conservation in the adjacent Nakai Nam Theun National Protected Area. At around 4,000 square kilometers (including corridors), Nakai Nam Theun NPA is the largest single protected area in Laos, with 403 species of birds and a large number of mammals, including elephants and the rare saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) and other large mammals discovered as recently as the 1990s. The PA sits upon the spine of Indochina, the Annamite Mountains, a center of high biodiversity and species endemism. The borders of Nakai Nam Theun stretch from wet evergreen forests along the Vietnamese border to the limestone karst formations of central Lao, which harbor a new family of rodents that were first described in 2005. Married to this biodiversity is an astonishing ethno-linguistic diversity. The people living in, and immediately around, the protected area include 28 linguistically distinct groups and can name a greater number of forest products than have been recorded from any other area in Laos.
Under a new conservation authority established during the preparation of the Nam Theun 2 hydropower project, the PA will be managed according to an integrated conservation and development model. Village agreements will be developed to detail resource use rules and regulations consistent with PA zonation, including controlled use and totally protected zones. Village conservation teams provide a platform for management of natural resources and for biodiversity monitoring and enforcement. Sustainable alternative livelihood options will mitigate negative impacts resulting from restrictions on resource use in key core conservation areas. Communities will be empowered through provision of secure land rights, capacity building, recognition of indigenous knowledge, and equitable distribution of benefits to ensure that the most vulnerable (and often most forest-dependent) groups are included in the process.
Previous conservation efforts in Laos have been undermined by lack of staff and long-term funding. Perhaps the most promising innovation in Nakai-Nam Theun is a new financial and administrative model. Since the protected area covers around 95 percent of the catchment for the Nam Theun 2 hydropower project, the developer will pay $1 million annually for PA protection over the 30-year concession period. The government of Laos is keen to apply similar financial models elsewhere, as it exploits its abundant water resources to mobilize resources for poverty reduction while maintaining the biodiversity base critical for many rural households. The funding for Nakai Nam Theun will be some two orders of magnitude greater than the total presently allocated from the central budget to the rest of the Lao protected areas system. The Bank is therefore establishing another fund for other local conservation areas to provide modest, demand-driven funding at a level appropriate to existing local capacity. Sustained support for the fund would also come from the revenues generated by natural resource industries. Through direct financing, and promotion of integrated development models, the Bank is providing biodiversity funding over a sufficient time-frame for conservation success to become its own champion in Lao PDR.
— 34 — Mitigating Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity the Growing Forest Partnerships (GFP) initiative, which structures. The World Bank is supporting this initiative with was informed by an independent, global consultation start-up funding from the Development Grant Facility. of over 600 forest stakeholders, including a special survey of Indigenous Peoples. The GFP aims to facilitate The GFP will provide a platform to achieve progress in bottom-up, multi-stakeholder partnership processes the following target areas by the year 2015: (a) creating in developing countries to identify national priorities, an enabling environment for carbon-based forestry to better access the increasing forest financing being activities (b) promoting the use of forests for poverty made available through a wide variety of international alleviation under conditions of climate change; (c) means and mechanisms (e.g. carbon finance, private significant growth in sustainably managed, and legally sector investments, and ODA). The GFP also aims to traded, forest products and the expansion of the area provide a platform to ensure that marginalized, forest- of responsibly managed forests; (d) an increase in the dependent groups can participate in the formulation of establishment, management, and financial sustainability national priorities and be included in the international of protected forest areas; and (e) a decrease in area of dialogue on forests. The GFP will work through locally- primary forest converted to alternative land uses. The based institutions and will build on existing partnership GFP will facilitate and scale up activities associated
Box 3.10 Can Carbon Markets Save the Sumatran Tigers and Elephants?
Riau Province in central Sumatra harbors populations of the critically endangered Sumatran tiger and the endangered Sumatran elephant within a high-priority Tiger Conservation Landscape. Riau has lost 65 percent of its original forest cover and has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world, due to loss and conversion of forest for agriculture, pulpwood plantations and for expanding industrial oil-palm plantations to serve the surging biofuels market. If the current rate of deforestation continues, estimates suggest that Riau’s natural forests will decline from
27 percent today to only 6 percent by 2015. All of this comes at a global cost. The average annual CO2 emissions from deforestation in Riau exceed the emissions of the Netherlands by 122 percent and are about 58 percent of Australia’s annual emissions. Between 1990 and 2007, Riau alone produced the equivalent of 24 percent of the targeted reduction in collective annual greenhouse gas emissions set by the Kyoto Protocol Annex I countries for the first commitment period of 2008–12.
Can carbon trading provide a new economic incentive to protect Riau’s forests, especially the carbon-rich peat swamp forests? At present, countries do not get rewarded for retaining forest canopy (avoided deforestation)—the emphasis is on afforestation. Second, although there are new programs under consideration to provide incentives for conserving forests, the prevailing price of carbon may be too low to shift incentives from clearing for biofuels or pulp to conservation. Third, even if the price of carbon rises sufficiently, Riau’s forests may not get priority over other forests with higher carbon sequestration potential since the proposed new systems pay only for carbon with little attention to the biodiversity value of forests.
Yet carbon markets may have potential to promote conservation in less productive lands. In parts of South Asia the returns (present value) of arable land are often as low as $100 to $150 per hectare. Clearing a hectare of tropical
forest could release 500 tons of CO2. At an extraordinarily low carbon price of even $10 per ton of CO2, an asset worth $5,000 per hectare is being destroyed for a less valuable land use. A modest payment through the newly proposed avoided deforestation scheme would be sufficient to shift incentives in some of the unproductive arable land in South Asia.
Source: Damania et al. 2008
— 35 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio with the implementation of the Bank’s Forest Strategy. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) aims to It will link existing and new partnership programs that build the capacity of developing countries in the tropics promote enabling conditions in the Forests sector (for to tap into financial incentives for reducing emissions example, the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) Initiative, the Multi-donor Program on Forests) with under future regulatory or voluntary climate change the Bank’s existing lending and financial instruments, regimes (see Box 1.1). FCPF became operational in as well as sources of new concessional financing. June 2008 with the start of operations of the Readiness Mechanism, which was triggered by the Readiness Fund having been capitalized at the required minimum ($20 Innovative Financing for Carbon and Biodiversity million). As of today, Australia, Finland, France, Japan, The Bank has been a leader in promoting incentives for Norway, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, protecting ecosystem services for carbon sequestration and and the United States have contributed $55 million biodiversity benefits. Initiatives, such as the BioCarbon to the Readiness Fund and $21 million to the Carbon Fund and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, afford Fund. The Readiness Fund will finance activities opportunities to protect forests for carbon sequestration designed to (a) establish a national reference scenario and other multiple benefits, including conservation of for emissions; (b) adopt national REDD strategies; biologically rich habitats, and greater community benefits and (c) design national monitoring systems. from native forest management and watershed protection.
— 36 — 4 Adapting to Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
uring the course of human history, Reduction of other pressures on biodiversity arising societies have often needed to cope from habitat conversion, overharvesting, pollution, and with managing the impacts of adverse alien species invasions can also contribute to climate Dweather events and changing climatic conditions. change adaptation measures. Since mitigation of Nevertheless, the pace of global change is now climate change itself is a long-term endeavor, reduction so rapid that additional measures will be required of other pressures may be among the most practical to reduce the adverse impacts of projected global short-term options. For example, increasing the health climate change in the near and long term. Moreover, of coral reefs, by reducing the pressures from coastal vulnerability to climate change can be exacerbated pollution and practices such as fishing with explosives by other stresses, including the loss of biodiversity, and poisons, may allow them to be more resilient to damage to ecosystem services, and land degradation. increased water temperature and to reduce bleaching. Similarly, countering habitat fragmentation through Adaptation will become an increasingly important the protection and/or establishment of biological part of the development agenda. Enhanced protection corridors between protected areas will increase forest and management of natural ecosystems and more resilience. More generally, mosaics of interconnected sustainable management of natural resources and agricultural crops can play a critical role in adaptation strategies. Adaptation activities can have positive impacts on biodiversity through:
44 Maintaining and restoring native ecosystems 44 Protecting and enhancing ecosystem services 44 Actively preventing, and controlling, invasive alien species 44 Managing habitats for rare, threatened, and endangered species 44 Developing agroforestry systems in transition zones between ecosystems 44 Monitoring results and changing management regimes accordingly.
— 37 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 4.1 Studying the Economics of Adaptation
A multi-donor research study, led by the World Bank, aims to assess the resource implications and eventual trade- offs for developing countries to adapt to different scenarios of climate change as they continue to advance their development and poverty reduction agendas. The specific objectives of the study are to (a) develop sectoral and global cost estimates of adaptation, and (b) develop and transfer to developing countries a working methodology to assess adaption costs and improve these estimates as more data and analyses become available. The methodology includes identifying and quantifying damage costs of climate change without adaptation measures; developing cost-benefit analyses of adaption actions; considering different climate scenarios; and integrating regional and sector analyses with national and global computable general equilibrium models. Assessing the critical costs associated with the loss and fragmentation of natural habitats, and the ecosystem services they provide, will provide important input to developing effective, low-cost, nature-based adaptation strategies.
Box 4.2 Adaptation in the Caribbean
Between 1997 and 2002, the World Bank—in collaboration with the University of the West Indies (UWI), the CARICOM Secretariat, and the Organization of American States (OAS)—was engaged in the implementation the Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change Project (CPACC). This regional project supported 12 CARICOM countries to address the adverse effects of global climate change (GCC), particularly sea-level rise, in coastal and marine areas through vulnerability assessments, adaptation planning, and capacity building linked to adaptation planning.
More specifically, the project assisted national governments in:
44 Strengthening regional capacity for monitoring and analyzing climate and sea level dynamics and trends, seeking to determine the immediate and potential impacts of global climate change 44 Identifying areas particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and sea-level rise 44 Developing an integrated management and planning framework for cost-effective response and adaptation to the impacts of climate change on coastal and marine areas 44 Enhancing regional and national capabilities to prepare for the advent of climate change through institutional strengthening and human resources development 44 Identifying and assessing policy options and instruments to help initiate the implementation of a long-term program of adaptation to GCC in vulnerable coastal areas.
terrestrial, freshwater, and marine multiple-use of the island nations of the Caribbean to the impacts of reserves and protected areas are better adapted to meet climate change. The economic impacts of climate change conservation needs under changing climate conditions. on SIDs are likely to be substantial. Potential economic impacts for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Small-island states will be especially vulnerable to countries, for instance, are estimated at between $1.4 climate change. Accordingly, some of the first Bank and $9 billion, assuming no adaptation measures. The projects on adaptation focused on small-island states in largest category of impacts is the loss of land, tourism the Pacific (Kiribas) and the Caribbean. The Caribbean infrastructure, housing, other buildings, and infrastructure Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change Project, a due to sea-level rise. Impacts on agriculture are also regional enabling activity, focused on the vulnerability potentially significant for CARICOM countries. Most
— 38 — Adapting to Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity of the remaining impacts are due to reduced tourism be complemented by off-reserve management. The demand, caused by rising temperatures and loss of combination of areas with different use regimes can meet beaches, coral reefs, and other ecosystems (15–20 percent), the needs of a wide range of actors while ensuring the and damage to property and life due to the increased conservation of critical habitats and species. Many Bank intensity of hurricanes and tropical storms (7–11 percent). projects are already contributing to improved biodiversity protection and conservation across large landscapes through mosaics of different land use. In Colombia, the Andes GEF project has a specific component dedicated to building ecological corridors through the highly devastated Maintaining and Restoring Native cloud forests and paramo habitats of the mountain chain. More than 70 percent of Colombia’s 41 million inhabitants Ecosystems have occupied the high Andes plateaus and mountains, transforming the original habitats into agriculture and Enhanced protection and management of natural pasturelands. The project has already identified new ecosystems and more sustainable management of natural areas for conservation through private reserves and is resources and agricultural crops needs to be a critical currently working with farmers to raise awareness of part of adaptation strategies. Biodiversity conservation the need to establish biological corridors (see Box 4.3). and protected areas can play an important and cost- effective role in protecting biological resources and Wetlands are some of the most threatened ecosystems on reducing vulnerability to climate change. The Bank has earth, yet they provide many vital ecosystem functions. already recognized the important role that enhanced Montane wetlands and freshwater habitats serve as vital protection of natural forests can play in protecting water recharge areas, an important source of water for development investments. Thus the Dumoga-Bone irrigation and consumption to downstream communities. National Park in Indonesia was established to protect a Coastal wetlands act as natural barriers protecting coastal major irrigation investment in North Sulawesi. Similarly, a new conservation area in Laos will protect the forests around the Nam Theun 2 Dam, extending the lifespan of the hydropower generation facility. Coastal protected areas in Croatia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Honduras, and Lithuania are protecting coastal forests, swamps, floodplains, and mangroves, important for shelter belts and flood control. Forest services such as coastal protection and nursery grounds for quality fisheries are increasingly being recognized as essential to these countries’ coastal economies and the livelihoods of the communities who depend upon them. In Bulgaria, the Bank is working with WWF and other partners to restore natural wetlands along the Danube River as filter beds to remove pollutants and provide habitat for native wildlife.
Systematic conservation planning to maintain a range of species and habitats requires strategies for managing whole landscapes, including areas designated for both production and protection. Protected areas must
— 39 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 4.3 Colombia: Biodiversity in the Andes
The Andean paramos ecoregion in Colombia stretches across an altitude range from 500 to 5,000 meters, covering three parallel mountain chains and two main internal river valleys. Climate and habitat ranges from hot and cold deserts to dry and wet high-cold mountains. Soils are mainly young in evolution but are derived from almost all kinds of material. As a result, the paramo hosts a great variety of ecosystems: paramos, wet and dry mountainous forests, wetlands, and xerofitic and subxerifitic environments. A project to increase conservation, knowledge, and sustainable use of globally important biodiversity of the Colombian Andes is testing various conservation strategies, including (a) regional systems of protected areas, (b) biodiversity conservation in rural landscapes, (c) inventory and monitoring of Andean biodiversity, (d) educational programs, and (e) inter-sectoral coordination. The project has been designed as an umbrella project for all other projects in the Andes.
The project includes the Los Nevados National Park, regional reserves, and private reserves, as well as agroecosystems, including shade and sun-grown coffee; mountain livestock systems, agroforestry, potato fields, and orchards of Andean fruit trees. The project is executed by the Institute Alexander von Humboldt, working with smallholders and farmers, campesinos, indigenous groups, research communities (universities), and environmental NGOs. Outcomes are expected to include natural regeneration of mountain ecosystems and improved connectivity between frag- ments of natural habitats in agricultural areas, thereby creating corridors for wildlife and gene flow. The Colombian Andes project will:
44 Support the development of a more representative, effective, and viable Andean protected area system 44 Identify conservation opportunities in rural landscapes, and develop and promote management tools for biodiversity conservation 44 Expand, organize, and disseminate the knowledge base on biodiversity in the Andes to a wide audience of stakeholders and policy makers, and implement monitoring tools 44 Promote inter-sectoral coordination to address some root causes of biodiversity loss in the Andes.
settlements from storms and other natural hazards, Landscape Connectivity reducing the risk of disaster. Inland areas protected by Maintaining connectivity between natural habitats healthy mangroves have generally suffered less than more and along altitudinal gradients will be a key strategy exposed communities from extreme weather events such to allow plant and animal species to adapt to climate as the 2004 tsunami that hit Southeast Asia and the 2008 change. Corridors of natural habitats within transformed Cyclone Nargis that hit southern Myanmar. Wetlands production landscapes and linking protected areas and freshwater rivers and lakes produce high yields of provide opportunities for species to move and maintain fish and other protein on which many of the world’s viable populations. Bank-supported projects are poorest communities depend. Similarly mangroves are promoting connectivity in the Maloti-Drakensberg important nurseries for fish, prawns and other marine Transfrontier corridor in Lesotho and South Africa; the invertebrates. Recent studies in the Gulf of Mexico for Vilicabamba-Amboró corridor in Venezuela, Colombia, instance suggest that mangrove-related fish and crab Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and northern Argentina; and species account for 32 percent of the small-scale fisheries through a network of corridors in Bhutan. The Critical landings in the region and that mangrove zones can be Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a multi-donor valued at $37,500 per hectare annually. The destruction of partnership, is providing strategic assistance to engage mangroves has a strong economic impact on local fishing nongovernmental organizations, indigenous and communities and on food production in the region. community groups, and other civil society partners,
— 40 — Adapting to Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
Box 4.4 Rebuilding Resilience in Wetland Ecosystems
The Gulf of Mexico possesses one of the richest, most extensive, and productive ecosystems on earth—coastal wetlands that cover an area of over 14,000 square kilometers. The coast is flanked by 27 major systems of estuaries, bays, and coastal lagoons that serve as shelter, feeding, and reproduction areas for numerous species of important riverine and marine fishes. Moreover, the coastal swamps of Tabasco and Campeche are home to 45 of the 111 endemic species of aquatic plants in Mexico. These coastal wetlands play an important role in the water cycle. Climate change is already beginning to impact on these ecosystems.
Sea-level rise in the Gulf of Mexico is leading to saltwater intrusion, forcing sea water into the boundary layer of freshwater. Anticipated modifications in rainfall patterns in northern Mexico will affect natural drainage systems, further deteriorating the natural water balance of these coastal wetland systems. Degraded marshlands and man- groves will be less likely to withstand extreme weather events in the Gulf of Mexico. The number of high-intensity hurricanes that have reached landfall in the Gulf of Mexico have increased by more than 40 percent compared to the 1960s. These storms often cause serious disruption with loss of property and human life. The ecological and economic consequences of all these impacts can be staggering.
The World Bank is preparing a project to address these concerns through improved water resource and wetland management. The project will pilot several measures, including:
44 Restoring wetlands, taking into account sand dynamics and hydrology; initial activities will include the removal of soil or sand sediments obstructing water flows and the maintenance of waterways that feed wetland restora- tion 44 Integrating climate change adaptation measures and resource management programs 44 Restoring mangrove swamp ecosystems by establishing permanent/seasonal closed areas as well as by reducing/ preventing changes in land use and promoting more efficient water management strategies, including restoration and reintroduction of native mangrove species in areas degraded by economic activities 44 Maintaining water supply for production sectors 44 Developing mechanisms to promote sustainable land-use patterns that maintain the functional integrity of wetland ecosystems in the region.
including the private sector, in biodiversity conservation many of those critical ecosystems, CEPF support is within 18 of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. In targeted to activities that strengthen protection and management of key biodiversity areas, including protected areas and biological corridors (see Box 4.5).
Adaptation in Agricultural Landscapes
Climate change and expected rainfall patterns are expected to have significant impacts on agricultural productivity, especially in arid and semi-arid regions. One study estimates that climate change could lead
— 41 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 4.5 Biological Corridors in a Changing World
The MesoAmerican Biological Corridor (MABC) is a natural corridor of tropical rainforests, pine savannas, montane forests, and coastal wetlands that extends from Mexico to Colombia. Within the corridor, the Bank is supporting a number of national interventions in Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, and Honduras to conserve the Atlantic forests of Central America. In Nicaragua, for instance, a GEF grant supported the incremental costs of protected areas and conservation-based land use in the corridor as part of an integrated development and conservation project. Management was strengthened in three key protected areas along the Caribbean coast: Cerro Silva natural reserve (339,400 hectares), Wawashan natural reserve (231,500 hectares), and the Cayos Miskitos biological reserve, which protects nesting grounds of five of the world’s seven species of marine turtles. Within the corridor, indigenous communities were assisted to gain tenure over indigenous lands and to develop livelihoods based on sustainable management of natural habitats and resources. By making development work to reduce pressures on native forests, the project promoted conservation of both biodiversity and ethnic cultures in one of the most intact parts of the MesoAmerican corridor.
The Atlantic Forests of Brazil are one of the most threatened ecosystems in Latin America, where only 7 percent of the original habitat remains in a few isolated forest patches. The area has an extraordinarily high level of endemism. The Bank, through the Pilot Program for the Brazilian Rain Forest and G7 donors, is working on increasing the connectivity of these patches through its Ecological Corridors project, which brings together states, municipalities, NGOs, and academic institutions to plan and act in a concerted way. Similarly, in the highly threatened Chaco Andean system in Ecuador, a Bank-funded project has strengthened biological corridors through funding for private reserves and innovative conservation models.
The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund is supporting civil society activities to address threats to biodiversity across landscapes that include a matrix of uses, from protected areas to high-value conservation sites in production landscapes. A critical ecosystem profile identifies the priorities for each hotspot; many of those priority activities are targeted toward key biological corridors. CEPF has already supported activities in the Sierra Madre in the Philippines, Barisan Selatan in Sumatra, key forest corridors in Madagascar, the West Guinea forest and Eastern arc forests in Africa, mountain corridors in the Caucasus and eastern Himalayas, and the Choco-Manabi and Vilcabamba-Amboro corridors in the Tropical Andes. A new phase of funding will target important biological landscapes and corridors in Indochina, including the Mekong corridor, and the highly diverse tropical forests of the Western Ghats in India.
to a 50 percent reduction in crop yields for rain-fed Adaptation in Marine and Coastal Areas agricultural crops by 2020. Most climate modeling Climate change will have significant impacts on coastal scenarios indicate that the drylands of West Asia and environments and fisheries. Mangroves and other North Africa, for instance, will be severely affected by coastal wetlands are especially vulnerable to climate droughts and high temperatures in the years to come. A change and rising sea levels. The loss of mangroves in greater frequency of droughts and flash floods has already turn makes coastal communities vulnerable to extreme been observed in recent years. These largely rain-fed weather events such as tsunamis. Climatic factors agricultural areas are the most vulnerable to the impact of affect the elements that influence the number and climate change. A new suite of Bank projects are helping distribution of marine fish species by reducing food countries to adapt agricultural practices to cope with availability, fragmenting and destroying breeding habits, changing climatic patterns, often building on traditional and changing the presence and species composition of knowledge and management practices (see Box 4.6). competitors and predators. The loss of near-shore fish
— 42 — Adapting to Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
Box 4.6 Adaptation to Climate Change Using Agrobiodiversity Resources in the Rainfed Highlands of Yemen
The communities in the highlands in Yemen retain important agrobiodiversity and traditional knowledge related to the utilization of their agrobiodiversity resources. This knowledge and practice has evolved over more than 2,000 years to increase agricultural productivity in areas of limited rainfall. The construction and management of terraces, for instance, helps to improve water use efficiency and minimize land degradation. Most of the landraces and local crop varieties have been selected to meet local needs and have adaptive attributes for coping with adverse environmental and climatic conditions. Yemen is considered an important primary and secondary center of diversity for cereals, so these crops are important genetic resources. This local agrobiodiversity is, however, threatened by global, national, and local challenges, including land degradation, climate change, globalization, anthropogenic local factors, and loss of traditional knowledge.
A $4 million GEF-supported project, currently under preparation, aims to enhance coping strategies for adaptation to climate change for farmers who rely on rain-fed agriculture in the Yemen highlands. The project focuses on the conservation and utilization of biodiversity important to agriculture (particularly the local landraces and their wild relatives) and associated local traditional knowledge. This GEF project will complement the Bank-IDA supported Rainfed Agriculture and Livestock Project. The project will have four components:
44 Agrobiodiversity and local knowledge assessment: Document farmers knowledge on (adaptive) characteristics of local landraces and their wild relatives in relation to environmental parameters to develop vulnerability profiles for the crops. 44 Climate modeling assessment: Develop initial local predictive capacity of weather patterns, climatic changes, and longer term climate change scenarios for these rain-fed areas. 44 Enhancement of coping mechanisms : Identify a menu of coping mechanisms (such as in-situ conservation, improved terracing with soil and water conservation practices, choice of crops and cropping patterns) designed and piloted to increase resilience of farmers to climate variability and reduce vulnerability to climatic shifts. 44 Enabling policies, institutional and capacity development: Improve the capacity of key line agencies and stake- holders to collect and analyze data, improve climate predictions, and systems of information and information flow for enhanced uptake of coping mechanisms in the agricultural sector.
nursery habitats to increased severe weather events, or restoration of mangroves can offer increased protection coastal development, and rising sea levels may also of coastal areas to sea level rise and extreme weather cause significant change to ecosystems and losses to events. Restoration of degraded mangroves in the marine biodiversity. The construction of dikes and Mekong Delta in Vietnam has improved management sea walls, as well as other coastal structures designed of coastal forests, improving coastal protection and to protect terrestrial resources from sea water, only safeguarding important nursery grounds for local further increase the stress on marine resources. fisheries. The rehabilitation of upland forests and of wetlands can help regulate flow in watersheds, thereby moderating floods from heavy rain and ameliorating Reducing Vulnerability water quality. Strengthening protection of cave Protection, restoration of natural habitats, and/or systems and natural forests can safeguard important establishment of biologically diverse ecosystems may aquifers and freshwater supplies (see Box 4.8). constitute important adaptation measures. Maintenance
— 43 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 4.7 Managing Marine and Coastal Resources
The Tanzania Marine and Coastal Environment Management Project (MACEMP) aims to strengthen the sustainable management and use of Tanzania’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), territorial seas, and coastal resources to enhance resilience to climate change and other environmental threats and to improve the livelihoods of coastal communities. Blueprint 2050 lays out the vision for protecting and managing 100 percent of the seas and coastline of Tanzania and Zanzibar, to be implemented with support from MACEMP. It draws on the best available science (ecological, cultural, and social), with inputs from a range of stakeholders representing the 8 million people who inhabit the coastal districts. Sustainable financing and creation of alternative income-generating activities are important elements of this strategy. Stakeholder involvement in decision making is a cross-cutting theme.
The project has three main components. First, it aims to establish and implement a common governance regime for the EEZ that contributes to the long-term sustainable use and management of EEZ resources based on an integrated coastal management approach. Second, it will support a comprehensive system of managed marine areas in the ter- ritorial seas, building on strategies that empower and benefit coastal communities and enhance long-term resilience. The third component empowers coastal communities to gain access to opportunities to request, implement, and monitor subprojects that contribute to improved livelihoods, risk management, and sustainable marine ecosystem management. A Marine Legacy Fund is being established to ensure long-term financial sustainability.
— 44 — Adapting to Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
Box 4.8 Protecting Karst and Cave Ecosystems in Croatia
Post-war Croatia is on a fast track toward economic development, spurred in part by prospects of future EU acces- sion. Historically, the tourism industry, once a mainstay of the Croatian economy, was based on mass tourism rather than nature tourism. Expanding tourism development, and other infrastructure development such as roads and hydropower, increasingly threaten some of Croatia’s most important natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
Croatia is famous for its karst freshwater ecosystems. The travertine barriers, some estimated to be over 40,000 years old, have led to the spectacular lakes and waterfalls now protected within two national parks. Large areas of the Dinarids, particularly in the Velebit Mountains, are densely covered by forest communities of beech, fir, spruce, and black pine, a relict alpine sub-species found only in the Velebit area. The karst region contains the largest area of unfragmented forest in Croatia, the integrity of which is evidenced by viable populations of large carnivores (wolf, brown bear, and lynx). Plitvice Lakes National Park is on the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) World List of Natural and Cultural Heritage. The Velebit Mountain Range is part of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program, and has been identified by WWF’s Forest Hot-spot Initiative as one of the 10 most important forest areas in the Mediterranean region. The region’s rich karst and cave systems also play an important role in freshwater regulation, recharging underground aquifers.
Both the subterranean and terrestrial karst ecosystems are known to be fragile, interconnected, and dependent upon a delicate balance between relief, hydrology, climate, and vegetation. The predominant surface ecosystems of natural forest and traditional pastoral land generally buffer the subterranean ecosystems, but the effectiveness of this function can be significantly reduced by subtle changes in climate, land use, and vegetation cover.
The recently completed Karst Ecosystem Conservation Project supported protected areas and sustainable inland nature-based tourism to draw discerning tourists away from Croatia’s coastline. The grant provided support to (a) strengthen institutional and technical capacity for biodiversity conservation of the Karst environment; (b) integrate biodiversity conservation into physical planning and sectoral strategies; (c) strengthen management of protected areas; and (d) promote entrepreneurial and tourism activities that support sustainable natural resource use and conservation. The project aimed to conserve the biological diversity and ecological integrity of the karst ecosystems in Croatia, particularly in the Dinarid Mountains, which contain an estimated 8,000 caves—among the deepest and most extensive in the world.
In response to climate change, many countries are likely to Adopting Indigenous Knowledge to Adapt invest in more infrastructure for coastal defenses and flood to Climate Change control to reduce the vulnerability of human settlements. Indigenous Peoples have played a key role in climate Increased water shortages will increase demand for new change mitigation and adaptation. In Brazil, Colombia, irrigation facilities. Such strategies could further threaten and Nicaragua, many territories of indigenous groups biodiversity if new development leads to destruction of who have been given the rights to their lands have natural habitats through creation of dams, sea walls, and been better conserved than the adjacent agricultural flood canals. Instead, in Ecuador and Argentina, flood lands. A climate change agenda fully involving control projects utilize the natural storage and recharge Indigenous Peoples has many more benefits than properties of critical forests and wetlands by integrating if only government and/or the private sector are them into “living with floods” strategies that incorporate involved. Indigenous peoples are some of the most forest protected areas and riparian corridors (see Box 4.9).
— 45 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 4.9 Protecting Natural Forests for Flood Control
The irregular rainfall patterns prevailing in Argentina cause floods and droughts. Under all climate change scenarios, these boom-and-bust cycles will become exaggerated. Currently, about one-fourth of the country is repeatedly flooded. This is particularly true for northeastern Argentina, which has three major rivers— the Paraná, the Paraguay, and the Uruguay—and extensive, low-lying plains. The seven provinces of this area (Entre Ríos, Formosa, Chaco, Corrientes, Misiones, Buenos Aires, and Santa Fe) make up nearly 30 percent of the country. Nearly half of Argentina’s population inhabits the latter two provinces, and an additional 12 percent live in the remaining five.
Flooding is the major regulating force in the ecosystems around these rivers; virtually all ecological events in the floodplains are either positively or negatively related to its extent and regularity. Typical habitats include the Pampas grasslands, Mesopotamia savannah, Paraná forests, Chaco estuaries and forests, and the Paraná River islands and delta. The Paraná forests in the province of Misiones have the highest level of faunal biodiversity, followed by the Chaco estuaries and forests. Overall, 60 percent of Argentina’s birds and more than 50 percent of its amphibians, reptiles, and mammals are found in the floodplains.
The first phase of a two-stage Flood Protection Program aimed at providing cost-effective flood protection coverage for the most important economic and ecological areas, and developing a strategy to cope with recurrent floods. The project included the development and enforcement of flood defense strategies, the maintenance of flood defense installations, early flood warning systems, environmental guidelines for flood-prone areas, and flood emergency plans. Extensive areas of natural forest were protected as part of the flood defense system. This incorporation of natural habitats into flood defenses provided a low-cost solution as an alternative to costly infrastructure, with the added benefit of high biodiversity gains. As changing climate increases the likelihood of extreme weather events and flooding, the Argentina case provides some useful lessons on how to best harness natural habitats to reduce vulnerability of downstream communities.
— 46 — Adapting to Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
Table 4.1 Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Infrastructure Projects to Protect Carbon Sinks and Biodiversity
Sectors: Energy, Hydropower Environmental impacts Mitigation/ conservation actions Flooding of natural habitats near reservoirs; displacement/ Creation of compensatory protected areas; species conser- loss of wildlife; loss of biodiversity; deterioration of water vation in situ and ex situ; minimization of flooded habitats; quality; accumulation of vegetation before reservoir filling; water pollution control/vegetation removal; water release upstream and downstream hydrological changes; alterati- management; minimum (ecological) stream flow mainte- on of fish communities and other aquatic life; invasion of nance year round; construction of fish passages and hat- aquatic vegetation and its associated disease vector species; chery facilities; application of fishing regulations; physical sedimentation of reservoirs; generation of quarries and bor- removal of containments; biological and mechanical pest row pits; construction of multiple dams in one river; human control; draw-down of reservoir water levels; watershed resettlement; changes in hydrodynamics management; sediment management techniques; landscape treatment; environmental assessment of cumulative impacts
Sectors: Energy–Pipelines; Transportation–Roads; Telecommunications–Access Corridors Environmental impacts Mitigation/ conservation actions Barriers to species dispersal; habitat loss, fragmentation, Generation of wildlife corridors to connect habitats; mi- and simplification; spread of tree diseases: insect infesta- nimization of project footprint; creation of compensatory tion; introduction of invasive species; human and domes- protected areas; management plans; use of native plant tic animal intrusions; runoff, erosion, and landslides; fire species as barriers to avoid or reduce undesirable intrusions; generation and/or natural fire frequency alteration; land use minimization of access roads and right of way (ROW) width changes; wetlands and stream deterioration; water quality for pipelines; minimization of forest edges; implementation alterations; modifications of indigenous peoples’ and local of management and maintenance plans for all routes; reve- communities’ ways of life getation along all routes; ROW maintenance; improvement of land use management; elaboration and implementation of zoning plans; environmental education and awareness programs
Sector: Water and Sanitation/Flood Protection Environmental impacts Mitigation /conservation actions Coastal erosion downstream from river breakwaters; Land use management; zoning; execution of pollution cont- pollutant removal by dredging bottom sediment; pollution rols; water quality monitoring; elaboration and implementa- of water supply sources; deterioration of wetlands; loss of tion of environmental education and awareness programs; connectivity between rivers/wetlands/riparian zones; displa- implementation of management plans for wetland areas; cement/loss of wildlife; generation of artificial wetlands; maintenance of wildlife corridors, channels, and flooded invasions of aquatic weeds and disease vectors; worsening areas; mechanical control of aquatic weeds; biological cont- of water quality due to sewage disposal water bodies; en- rol of disease vectors; adequate site selection and enginee- croachment; land use changes; storm-induced floods within ring design; establishment of physical barriers; adoption of enclosed areas protected by dikes design criteria aimed at discouraging encroachment into natural habitats
Source: Quintero 2007 vulnerable groups to the negative effects of climate Over the millennia, Indigenous Peoples have developed change. Also, they are a source of knowledge for adaptation models to climate change. They have also solutions that will be needed to avoid or ameliorate developed genetic varieties of medicinal and useful those effects. For example, ancestral territories often plants and animal breeds with a wider natural range provide excellent examples of a landscape design that of resistance to climatic and ecological variability. can resist the negatives effects of climate change. Box 4.10 illustrates how indigenous people are using traditional knowledge to adapt to climate change.
— 47 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 4.10 Measures to Address Climate Change in the Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve in Peru
GEF has supported the Participatory Management of Protected Areas Project in Peru since 2005. The Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve is one of the protected areas supported under the project. Located north of Arequipa city, at an altitude between 3,600 and 6,000 meters, the Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve is the habitat of wild cameloids, such as vicuña and guanaco, and home to a wide range of migratory and sedentary birds that breed around various mountain lakes, dams, and rivers. Created in 1979 to preserve the endangered flora and fauna of the area, it recently has been extended to 366,936 hectares. The volcanoes Misti, Chachani, and Pichu Pichu are within the limits of the reserve, as well as the beautiful Salinas lagoon, which creates an ideal habitat for flamingos. The Indio lagoon is another important refuge for water birds. The Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve is the habitat for some 23 mammals and 138 birds, including vizcacha, Andean huemul, culpeo fox, vicuña, guanaco, and flamingos.
The reserve protects the main source of water for the city of Arequipa, as well as other smaller towns. The natural ecosystems are threatened from deforestation by the 14 local communities that inhabit the reserve. Around 8,000 inhabitants live within the reserve; many of them are engaged in cameloid farming. Water resources are scarcer every day due to the melting of the glaciers and because the area receives less precipitation than in the past. This water decrease can be attributed to climate change. The GEF project has supported sub-projects to help the local communities adapt to climate change, including water conservation and management activities that have had a positive impact on biodiversity conservation. Water retention terracing to collect water during the rainy season improves filtration and conservation. Technologies include infiltration ditches, small barrages, water mirrors (small lakes), and rustic canals. These traditional technologies were developed by ancestral indigenous peoples in the area, but died out after the Spanish conquest. A recent revival of these methods has increased water availability, especially during the summer season, and the vegetation has recovered in some parts of the reserve.
Over the last two decades, 109 Bank projects have supported or are supporting Indigenous Peoples programs and needs. Several of these projects have supported the conservation of tropical forests and reforestation activities that are directly linked to avoided deforestation; only a few have had direct benefits from carbon payments. The following activities supporting climate change and indigenous objectives are commonly found in these 109 projects: (a) Indigenous Peoples and protected-areas co-management, (b) titling and demarcation of indigenous lands, (c) indigenous life plans, (d) establishment of indigenous conservation areas, (e) indigenous community management and zoning plans, (f) indigenous community mapping and conservation, (g) community sustainable livelihood, and (h) capacity building and training.
— 48 — Adapting to Climate Change: The Role of Biodiversity
Box 4.11 Using Land Tenure to Facilitate Greater Adaptation to Climate Change
Many within, and outside, the Bank consider the Brazil Indigenous Lands Project a best-practice example of a project that strategically has helped large populations of Indigenous Peoples in Brazil, particularly in the Amazon region, to demarcate their own territories. Since the beginning of the 20th century, Brazilian law has accorded legal recognition to Indigenous Peoples’ land rights, which constitute about 103 million hectares, or 20.6 percent of the Legal Amazon. Legalization of indigenous lands requires that they be formally identified, delimited, demarcated, decreed, and registered. When the Brazil Indigenous Lands Project was prepared, only 50 percent of 556 Indigenous lands recognized by Brazil’s National Indian Foundation had been legalized. The project enhanced the well-being of Indigenous Peoples and promoted the conservation of their natural resources by completing the legalization and assisting in the protection of approximately 121 indigenous areas in the Brazilian Amazon. It has also sponsored targeted studies, capacity building, and community-driven protection activities. This $22-million project was financed by the Rain Forest Trust Fund, the German government, and Brazilian counterpart funds. As of 2008, more than 65 of these indigenous territories have been demarcated, covering 45 million hectares (equivalent to more than 10 percent of the Amazon forest or an area larger than Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland combined). As a result of this project, these indigenous groups are now in a better position to participate in the various private and public carbon payments from avoided deforestation.
This project has been an innovative and pioneering effort not only to regularize indigenous lands in the Brazilian Amazon, but also to improve capacity and to increase indigenous participation and control in the processes of regularizing, protecting, and managing their lands. Satellite maps clearly show that the area of the Amazon covered by indigenous lands represents one of the largest remaining reserves of essentially intact tropical forest. After many years of conflict and unresolved land tenure, the Indigenous Peoples of the upper and middle Rio Negro in Brazil are finally having their lands legally recognized. The 106,000-square-kilometer area is home to 19 ethnic groups. Especially satisfying is that the project supports an alternative way of demarcating the land. The regional indigenous organization and a national NGO (the Socio-Environmental Institute) are actively involved in the process, as are all the indigenous communities who live there.
— 49 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
— 50 — 5 Biodiversity Conservation and Food, Water and Livelihood Security: Emerging Issues
hree of the world’s greatest challenges over to conserve biodiversity are likely to fail. At the same the coming decades will be biodiversity time, agriculture is highly dependent on soil biodiversity loss, climate change, and water stress. and agrobiodiversity (for example, crop varieties) as TThese three issues are closely linked to agricultural well as the ecosystem services that natural habitats productivity and food security. For some years, the World and biodiversity provide (see Box 5.1). In many of the Bank has recognized that climate change poses a threat poorest countries and rural areas with chronic hunger, to achieving poverty reduction and development goals. achieving the MDG to reduce hunger and poverty will Climate change will exacerbate the rate of biodiversity require significant increases in agricultural production and habitat loss and land degradation, in part through the and productivity, as well as the rehabilitation of degraded spread of invasive alien species. Although many natural lands and natural resources critical for food security. and economic sectors will be affected by climate change, impacts on agriculture and water availability will have the The Bank has a large and expanding agriculture greatest potential to negatively affect the livelihoods of the portfolio. Few of these projects explicitly target poor in rural areas, as well as national economic growth biodiversity conservation, although many promote in the least-developed countries, especially in Africa. more sustainable agricultural practices, such as rotational cropping and soil conservation measures, which are more ecologically friendly and designed
Agriculture, Climate Change, and Biodiversity
Agriculture is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity worldwide. Expanding agriculture leads to habitat loss and fragmentation, drainage of wetlands, and impacts on freshwater and marine ecosystems through sedimentation and pollution. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment confirmed that agricultural land uses are the dominant terrestrial influence on ecosystems and that without major changes in current farming practices and agricultural landscape management, many efforts
— 51 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 5.1 Downstream Benefits from Forest Conservation in Madagascar
Economic analysis can be a useful tool for demonstrating the benefits of protected areas and conservation. A World Bank study showed that the economic benefits of biodiversity conservation far outweigh costs in Madagascar. The cost of sustainably managing a network of 2.2 million hectares of forests and protected areas over a 15-year period was estimated at $97 million (including opportunity costs forgone in future agricultural production), but would result in total benefits of $150 to $180 million. About 10 to 15 percent of these benefits are from direct payments for biodiversity conservation, 35 to 40 percent from ecotourism revenues, and 50 percent from watershed protection, primarily from averting the impacts of soil erosion on smallholder irrigated rice production.
The study considered potential winners and losers from forest conservation and pointed to the needs for equitable transfer mechanisms to close this gap, but emphasized that conservation will help to maintain or improve the welfare of at least half a million poor peasants. The study contributed to a government decision to increase forest protected areas to more than 6 million hectares in Madagascar. The Bank and other donors are helping to fund the expanded protected area network through the Third Environment Program, including capitalization of a conservation trust fund to provide sustainable financing. Carbon finance will also provide support to protect Madagascar’s rich forests, as well as the island’s unique lemurs and other endemic fauna.
to increase harvest yields. During the last decade the 44 How can biodiversity be mainstreamed into the Bank has become engaged in developing a suite of production landscape? pilot biodiversity conservation projects that target 44 How do initiatives, such as training in sustainable agriculture in, and around, protected areas or in larger harvesting or pest ecology, affect the capacity of small- landscapes of conservation interest. Such projects scale or subsistence producers to utilize threatened usually try to change production practices to provide habitats without inflicting further harm? greater biodiversity benefits (such as promotion of shade 44 What are the economic and environmental (including coffee) or attempt to substitute other income-earning species biodiversity) concerns surrounding biomass opportunities for harmful agricultural practices. A production? few projects have also promoted more biodiversity- 44 How are intellectual property rights important to friendly policies in the agricultural sector, such as conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity? promotion of integrated pest management in Indonesia 44 How have past changes in agricultural biodiversity to reduce dependence on high levels of pesticides. affected rural livelihoods and nutritional security? 44 What are the impacts of climate change on agricultural Recent work has focused on providing guidance at a biodiversity and loss of agricultural biodiversity on global and regional level on how to improve agricultural adaptability to climate change? production while reducing the impact of agriculture on the natural world. The Bank—with UNEP and other donors— The knowledge generated by the IAASTD will strengthen is supporting The International Assessment of Agricultural the capacity of institutions to design and implement Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) to analyze integrated management approaches, appropriate the effects of agricultural policies, practices, technologies policies, and incentive structures that could contribute and organizational arrangements on ecosystems and to reducing the overall rate of natural resource loss their goods and services, including biodiversity. Some and land degradation, as well as enhancing landscape of the questions that are being addressed include: biodiversity in both production and protected areas.
— 52 — Biodiversity Conservation and Food, Water and Livelihood Security: Emerging Issues in a Time of Climate Change
Sustainable agricultural practices and improved For temperature increases above 3°C, yield losses are natural resource management will contribute to expected to occur everywhere and be particularly severe improving livelihoods, food security, and health. in tropical regions. Areas most vulnerable to climate change—centered in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa—also have the largest number of rural poor and rural populations dependent on agriculture. This makes climate change a core development problem, Agriculture and Food Security and biodiversity actions a critical part of the solution.
Climate change and global warming will lead to decreased The Bank’s response to the threats presented by climate water availability, especially in arid and semi-arid lands. change to agriculture focus on both mitigation and A reduction in agricultural productivity is anticipated, adaptation efforts and can be divided into four strategic especially in the tropics and sub-tropics, as a result of objectives: increased temperatures and increased evapotranspiration.
Climate change impacts will disproportionately affect the 44 Monitoring impacts of climate change on crops, forests, rural poor who rely on agriculture through increased risk livestock and fisheries (adaptation) of crop failure, pest infestation, water scarcity, and livestock 44 Providing risk management strategies for farmers and deaths. These impacts are already imposing economic lenders against climate change impacts (adaptation) losses and undermining food security, and they are likely 44 Preventing crop and livestock losses due to changing to get far more severe as global warming continues. climatic factors and increased pest pressure through improved management techniques and tolerant crop According to crop-climate models, in tropical countries varieties/livestock breeds (adaptation) even moderate warming can reduce yields significantly 44 Improving land and resource management to prevent (1°C for wheat and maize and 2°C for rice) because many degradation of the sustainable production base crops are already at the limit of their heat tolerance. (mitigation).
Box 5.2 Supporting Climate Risk Management in Africa
Land degradation poses a serious threat to livelihoods and economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica is a partnership between African countries, UN organizations, donor countries, national, regional, and international agen- cies, civil society and the research community with a mandate to scale up and harmonize country-driven, sustainable land management practices (SLM) across Sub-Saharan Africa. TerrAfrica works closely with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), and supports the objectives of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. The partnership recognizes climate risk management as an integral component of its activities, which include coalition building at the global, regional and national level, knowledge development and management, and project investments.
The regional and national investments planned under the TerrAfrica umbrella are expected to improve land use practices and carbon sequestration while promoting more sustainable land management and biodiversity conserva- tion. The Bank is already assisting several countries in sub-Saharan Africa—including Burundi, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mauritania, and Senegal—to integrate sustainable land management into poverty reduction strategies and invest- ments to address land degradation. For more information on TerrAfrica, see www.terrafrica.org.
— 53 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
These objectives encompass a broad range of activities, sponsoring science and management to improve which are currently being addressed through economic land, water, and forest resources. Moreover, teams and sector work studies, non-lending technical assistance, assisting IDA countries on climate change can also IDA lending in support of disaster management, draw on Bank instruments, including carbon offsets, supporting clean development mechanisms, and with operations in IDA countries (Albania, India,
Box 5.3 Bank Studies and Projects related to Climate Change and Agriculture and Natural Resource Management
44 The Social Development Department (SDV) and the Agriculture and Rural Development Department (ARD) are planning a study on the implications of climate change for local rural institutions and livelihoods. The study would address the different factors that might jeopardize the livelihoods of agrarian societies in dry lands and how those impacts differ by social groups. 44 SDV has initiated a working paper on the implications of climate change for rural social organization and policy to understand the role that rural institutions can play in mitigation, adaptation, and climate change awareness at the community level. 44 The Energy, Water and Transport (ETW) Department is developing a study on Water and Adaptation to Climate Change: Implications on Investment and Project Design, which includes water for agriculture. 44 The Development Research Group (DECRG) has completed a series of studies on (a) Impacts of, and Adaptation to, Climate Change in Agriculture in Africa and South America; (b) Climate Change and Rural Development in South America; (c) Measuring the Impact of, and Adaptation to, Climate Change by Farm Types using Agro-ecological Zones in Africa; and (d) Climate Change and Agriculture: An economic analysis of global impacts, adaptation, and distributional effects. 44 ARD, WBI, and the Africa (AFR) Region (in collaboration with CEEPA and the University of Pretoria) have completed a project on Climate, Water and Agriculture: Impacts and Adaptation of Agro-ecological Systems in Africa. 44 AFR is carrying out rural risk management studies in Ethiopia and Senegal. Projects for Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, and Mozambique include components on adaptation to climate change for agriculture and rural development. 44 The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region is working on a series of studies, including (a) assets at risk in the Nile Delta under alternative sea-level rise scenarios; (b) impacts of climate change on cereals and high-value export crops, and implications for agricultural policies in Morocco; and (c) impacts of climate change on the agriculture sector in Tunisia. 44 The South Asia Region (SAR) has (a) undertaken a study on Adaptation to Drought in Andhra Pradesh, India; (b) completed a study on Water, Natural resources, and Environment Nexus for Development and Growth in NE India (c) completed a study on Addressing Vulnerability to Climate Variability and Climate Change through an assess- ment of adaptation issues and options in India, focused on the agricultural and rural sectors; and (d) is scoping a study on Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change in Nepal, with a focus on water, agriculture, and livelihoods. Three pipeline projects deal with adaptation and climate change in India, with a focus on agriculture. 44 LAC is initiating work on adaptation in agriculture in the Pampas in Argentina and southern Brazil. A project on adapting to rapid glacier retreat in the tropical Andes (Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru) also considers the impacts of climate change on agricultural activities. 44 In EAP, a major project is in the pipeline for China focusing on mainstreaming adaptation to climate change into water resources management and agricultural development. 44 ECA has provided technical assistance at the regional and country level on adapting to the impacts of climate change, primarily in the agriculture and water sectors.
— 54 — Biodiversity Conservation and Food, Water and Livelihood Security: Emerging Issues in a Time of Climate Change
Honduras, Moldova, Nepal, and Nicaragua) that focus use patterns and global warming will affect species largely on afforestation, biogas, and soil conservation. distributions, exacerbate other environmental stresses, GEF grants in countries such as Benin, Cameroon, and may facilitate the establishment and spread of Kiribati, Albania, Kenya, and Uganda focus on invasive alien species. Most introductions of exotic species management of land, forest, and ecosystem resources. to new environments have been facilitated by human agency either deliberately (most vertebrate and terrestrial As agricultural programs take account of climate change plants, other than agricultural weeds) or accidentally, and changing rainfall patterns, there is an increasing including the majority of invertebrate taxa, for example, emphasis on community-driven development. This in the ballast of ships. The spread of IAS is on the is encouraging more sustainable agriculture to avoid increase globally, facilitated by increasing trade, tourism, overgrazing and land degradation and promote new international traffic and even development assistance. agroforestry systems and multi-species cropping. Invasive alien species are a threat to biodiversity and Increased attention is also being paid to conserving economic development, reducing crop and fisheries agrobiodiversity in crop gene banks and to traditional yields; contributing to land degradation; clogging agricultural practices, which maintain diversity of irrigation canals, reservoirs, and hydroelectric dams; and varieties and crops for food security (see Box 4.6). reducing the lifespan of development investments.
Development programs for agriculture, especially Invasive Alien Species agroforestry programs and aquaculture, can facilitate both Invasive alien species (IAS) are now widely regarded deliberate and unintentional introductions of invasive as the second greatest threat to biodiversity after direct alien species. Such misjudgments and accidents are habitat destruction and fragmentation. Changing land costly; indeed, their negative effects may be far greater
— 55 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio and longer lasting than the positive impacts of the aid The threats to agricultural productivity posed by IAS programs from which they arose. Invasives accidentally (weeds, pests, and diseases of crops and livestock) introduced through development assistance programs have long been recognized. In recent years, our include itch grass, a major weed in cereals in South understanding of the impacts of IAS on natural and Central America, and a range of nematode pests. ecosystems, the services they provide, and wider Problems resulting from intentional introductions human livelihoods has increased. For example, under development assistance programs include water exotic plants can come to dominate freshwater hyacinth, Tilapia fish for aquaculture in Central America, bodies and waterways, affecting nutrient dynamics, and a number of agroforestry trees and shrubs. oxygen availability, food webs, and fisheries. Other IAS, from microbes to mammals, pose a major The introduction of new and adaptable exotic species threat to agricultural and natural ecosystems, and for agriculture and to meet increasing demands for to human health and livelihoods. The economic biofuels, mariculture, aquaculture, and reforestation impacts of IAS are expensive, costing an estimated presents a particular challenge. Ironically, in some cases, $140 billion annually in the United States. Water the very characteristics that make a species attractive for hyacinth in Lake Victoria costs around $150 million introduction under development assistance programs per year for control and removal, and threatens local (fast-growing, adaptable, high reproductive output, fisheries; eradication of donkeys and goats from tolerant of disturbance and a range of environmental parts of the Galapagos Islands to protect fragile conditions) are the same properties that increase ecosystems, endemic species and the local tourist the likelihood of the species becoming invasive. economy costs more than $8 million annually.
Box 5.4 The Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP)
GISP is a voluntary association between the World Conservation Union (IUCN), CAB International (CABI), The Nature Conservancy, USA (TNC) and the South African National Botanical Institute (SANBI). GISP has a small, dedicated secretariat, now based in Nairobi.
The GISP mission is to conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species. To this end, GISP seeks to:
44 Improve the scientific basis for decision making on invasive species 44 Develop capacities to employ early warning and rapid assessment and response systems 44 Enhance the ability to manage invasive species 44 Reduce the socioeconomic impacts of invasive species and control methods 44 Develop better risk assessment methods 44 Strengthen international agreements.
A key focus for GISP is to support the implementation of relevant international legal instruments, including the IAS work program of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The World Bank has formed a partnership with GISP by supporting the GISP secretariat and key capacity building activities with funding through the Bank Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP) and the Development Grant Facility (DGF).
For general information about some of the world’s most invasive species, see the database of the Invasive Species Specialist Group at www.issg.org, and the website of the Global Invasive Species Programme at www.gisp.org.
— 56 — Biodiversity Conservation and Food, Water and Livelihood Security: Emerging Issues in a Time of Climate Change
The impacts of IAS on land and water management invasive alien species. Workshops have been held in and agriculture will be greatest in some of the eastern and southern Africa to build capacity to deal with poorest countries, including those in Africa, where the economic and legal aspects of IAS. These capacity land degradation and food security are already major building efforts have been complemented by specific concerns. The Bank is working with the Global Invasive projects to control, manage, and eradicate IAS in South Species Programme (GISP) to better understand the Africa (wattles and pines), Lake Victoria (water hyacinth), implications of IAS on food production, food security and India, the Seychelles, and South and Central America. health, including assessment of best practice guidelines for avoiding the introduction of species known to be Climate change is likely to exacerbate the spread of IAS, invasive. Assisting clients, especially the least-developing with serious environmental and economic consequences. countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Already, invasives are a serious problem in some to better understand and manage IAS problems will be vulnerable habitats such as the Cape Floristic Region an important part of the adaptation and development (CFR) in South Africa. It is estimated that 43 percent of agenda. With funding through the Bank Netherlands the Cape Peninsula alone is covered in alien vegetation, Partnership Program and the Development Grant Facility, consuming up to 50 percent of the region’s river runoff. the Bank has supported GISP to develop tools and The availability of freshwater is a key limiting factor methodologies to assess the economic costs of IAS and to development in the Western Cape; where water is to demonstrate the benefits of containing and managing available, it is already fully utilized. It has been estimated that the spread of exotic trees in the mountain catchment areas surrounding Cape Town could reduce water Box 5.5 resources for this rapidly growing city by 30 percent. The Inter-American These losses could mean that more (and expensive) dams Biodiversity Information have to be built much earlier to meet water demands. Network (IABIN) Additionally, invasive plants in indigenous grasslands and
IABIN is an Internet-based forum for technical scrublands increase fuel loads and fire risk, which leads to and scientific cooperation that seeks to promote increased soil erosion, degradation and biodiversity loss in greater coordination among Western Hemisphere mountain catchments. The South African government has countries in the collection, sharing, and use of bio- taken serious action to address these threats through the diversity information relevant to decision making Working for Water and Working for Fire programs, which and education. As one of its six thematic priorities, are collaborating with the Bank/GEF C.A.P.E. program to IABIN is addressing the need for a regional network better manage and control IAS in the CFR. Support to the of invasive species knowledge bases. National databases provide easily accessible data to rel- Working for Water Program from the Bank’s Development evant agencies so they can assess which species Marketplace has increased employment opportunities are invasive or potentially invasive in particular for marginalized people through small-scale industries habitats, and use this information in their planning that utilize, and add value to, harvested alien trees. efforts. The IABIN Invasives Information Network (I3N) includes Argentina, Brazil, Bahamas, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Biofuels for Renewable Energy El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela, and the United States. New initiatives under the climate change agenda The network has produced a series of useful tools provide both opportunities and challenges for and products such as I3N standards, national I3N biodiversity conservation. Bio-energy plantations catalogues, an inter-operable search engine, fact can substitute for fossil fuels and may also provide sheets, and an I3N thesaurus. benefits to small farmers engaged in their production.
— 57 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
However, without careful planning, biofuel production are known to become invasive in some countries could lead to further clearance of natural habitats, where they have been introduced (see Table 5.1). either for biofuels themselves or for new agricultural land to replace converted crop lands. Moreover, With the rapidly rising global concern about climate many species being promoted for biofuel production change, there has been intense interest in the potential for
Table 5.1 Known Invasive Species Listed in Different Countries as Suitable for Biofuel Production Species Name Common Name Native Range Invasive Status Artocarpus communis, Breadfruit Pacific Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Line Islands A. altilis Southeast Asia
Arundo donax Giant reed Eurasia United States, Mexico, the Caribbean, Southern Europe, South Africa, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii
Azadirachta indica Neem India, Burma, Sri West Africa, Australia, Fiji, Mauritius Lanka, Myanmar, Bangladesh
Brassica napus Rapeseed/canola Eurasia Australia, Ecuador, Fiji, Hawaii, New Caledo- nia
Camelina sativa False flax Eastern Europe and North America, Western Europe, Australia, Southwest Asia Central America, South America, Japan
Elaeis guineensis African oil palm West Africa, Brazil, Micronesia, Florida USA Madagascar
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust Eastern North America Central Argentina, South Africa, Australia, USA, New Zealand
Jatropha curcas Jatropha/ physic nut Tropical America Australia, South Africa, USA, Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico
Maclura pomifera Osage orange Central United States Europe, USA, Australia, South Africa
Morus alba Mulberry Asia Brazil, Ecuador, United States
Olea europaea Olive tree Mediterranean Europe Australia, Hawaii, New Zealand
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canary grass Europe, Asia, North United States, South Africa, Australia, New America Zealand, Chile, most temperate countries
Prosopis spp. Mesquite America Eastern Africa (Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Dji- bouti), Southern Africa, India, Australia
Ricinus communis Castor bean East Africa Brazil, Australia, Pacific islands, New Zealand, South Africa, Mexico, USA, Western Europe
Sorghum halepense Johnson grass Mediterranean to United States, Australia, Pacific Islands, Cent- India ral and South America, Indonesia, Thailand
Ziziphus mauritiana Chinese apple/jujube India, China Australia, Africa, Afghanistan, China, Malay- sia, northern Australia, Pacific and Caribbean region
Source: GISP, 2007
— 58 — Biodiversity Conservation and Food, Water and Livelihood Security: Emerging Issues in a Time of Climate Change expanding the amount of energy generated by biofuels as Bank is assessing the social and economic benefits of a substitute for the unsustainable burning of fossil fuels. promoting Jatropha for biofuel production in Kenya. Biofuels offer a potential source of renewable energy and could lead to large new markets for agricultural There is increasing evidence that biofuels are not a silver producers. There is considerable public support for bullet. Economists, environmentalists, and social scientists, biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels, as a response among others, have presented compelling evidence to mitigation of climate change, and a contribution to that (a) some biofuels are not economically attractive energy security. Policies in the United States and EU that alternatives to fossil fuels in the absence of subsidies; (b) mandate specific targets for biofuels in meeting fuel needs they may not provide significant savings in greenhouse are fueling rapidly growing biofuel industries. However, gas production; (c) the cultivation of plant-based biofuels few current biofuel programs are economically viable has serious environmental costs in terms of its impact without subsidies and many have potential social and on biodiversity; and that (d) the social impacts of the environmental costs, including intensified competition for expansion of plant-based biofuels can have detrimental land and water and possibly deforestation. While biofuel impacts on food availability and affordability, as well as plantations on degraded and/or abandoned agricultural other negative impacts on the poorest populations in the lands may prove beneficial, the expansion of biofuels in developing world (see Box 5.6). Accordingly, the Bank is the tropics is also leading to clearance and loss of natural working with WWF to produce a prototype score card ecosystems, with consequent loss of biodiversity. The to assess when, where, and what biofuel production is clearance of peat swamp forests for oil palm production environmentally and socially sustainable. This Biofuels in Indonesia, for instance, is estimated to have been a Sustainability Scorecard is modeled on the WWF-World major contributor to Indonesia’s GHG emissions, making Bank Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Tracking Indonesia the third largest emitter of GHGs in 2006. Tool. The biofuels scorecard will allow the user to rate a potential biofuel on a defined, qualitative scale on a series Pilot projects of various scales are already under way of criteria that are key to the expected environmental or in the planning stages in many parts of the world, sustainability of the biofuel and its production system. particularly in Asia, Africa, and South America to establish smallholder plantations of biofuel species such as Jatropha curcas for job creation, poverty alleviation, and restoration Sustainable Land Management of degraded land. Jatropha curcas is a fast-growing, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment confirmed that drought-resistant shrub or small tree that is native to land degradation/desertification is potentially the most southern Mexico and Central America, but has been threatening ecosystem change that impacts the livelihoods introduced to many tropical and subtropical regions of of the poor. Land degradation diminishes biological the world. It is a member of the euphorbia family and can diversity and many of the ecosystem goods and services tolerate marginal, nutrient-poor soils and arid conditions, on which human societies depend. Up to 75 percent of although it is relatively sensitive to frost. Because it is Africa’s poor live in rural areas with livelihoods critically unpalatable to livestock, it has been widely used in rural dependent on efficient use of increasingly scarce land, communities in Africa as a hedge or ‘living fence’ around water, biodiversity, and nutrients. Land degradation crops. Once mature, the trees annually produce about 4kg marginalizes efforts to secure long-term food security, of seed, which have an oil content of 30–40 percent. The rural productivity, and development. Climate change is seeds are toxic to humans and animals, but have been likely to put further stress on already fragile ecosystems. used in traditional medicines as a purgative or laxative. Desertification in some regions is already triggering The oil has also been used by rural communities to make large-scale migrations, instability, and potential conflicts soap and other products, such as hair treatments. The over scarce resources. As one of the leading financiers
— 59 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 5.6 Biofuels—Too Much of a Good Thing?
With oil prices at record highs and with few alternative fuels for transport, several countries are actively supporting the production of liquid biofuels from agriculture—usually maize or sugarcane for ethanol, and various oil crops for biodiesel. As the economic, environmental, and social effects of biofuels are widely debated, they need to be carefully assessed before extending public support to large-scale biofuel programs. Those effects depend on the type of feedstock, the production process used, and the changes in land use.
Global production of ethanol as a fuel in 2006 was around 40 billion liters. Of that amount, nearly 90 percent was produced in Brazil and the United States. In addition, about 6.5 billion liters of biodiesel were produced in 2006, of which 75 percent was produced in the European Union. Current biofuel policies could, according to some estimates, lead to a fivefold increase in the share of biofuels in global transport—from just over 1 percent today to around 6 percent by 2020.
Are biofuels economically viable—and what is their effect on food prices?
Governments provide substantial support to biofuels so that they can compete with gasoline and conventional diesel. Such support includes consumption incentives (fuel tax reductions); production incentives (tax incentives, loan guarantees, and direct subsidy payments); and mandatory consumption requirements.
Rising agricultural crop prices caused by demand for biofuels have come to the forefront in the debate about a potential conflict between food and fuel. Rising prices of staple crops can cause significant welfare losses for the poor, most of whom are net buyers of staple crops. But many other poor producers, who are net sellers of these crops, benefit from higher prices. For example, biofuel production has pushed up feedstock prices.
Nonmarket benefits and risks are context-specific. The possible environmental and social benefits of biofuels are second only to energy security as the most frequently cited arguments in support of public funding and policy incentives for biofuel programs. But these come with risks also.
Potential environmental benefits. Environmental benefits need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis because they depend on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the cultivation of feedstocks, the biofuels production process, and the transport of biofuels to markets. Changes in land use, such as cutting forests or draining peatland to produce feedstock such as oil palm, can cancel the GHG emission savings for decades. Similarly, land use changes born of a need to replace land for food crops that is now used for biofuel production, can eliminate GHG savings and irreversibly damage wildlife and wild lands.
Benefits to smallholders. Biofuels can benefit smallholder farmers by generating employment and increasing rural incomes, but the scope of those benefits is likely to remain limited with current technologies. Ethanol production requires fairly large economies of scale and vertical integration because of the complexity of the production process in the distilleries. Small-scale production of biodiesel could meet local energy demand, but rising food and feedstock prices could negate any gains in cheaper energy.
Source: World Development Report 2008
of measures aimed at combating land degradation and services (see Box 5.7). New carbon markets may also desertification, the World Bank continues to invest in afford opportunities to invest in land rehabilitation, as activities that promote appropriate sustainable land well as more sustainable agricultural practices to restore management (SLM) practices and protection of ecosystem productive agricultural systems and alleviate poverty.
— 60 — Biodiversity Conservation and Food, Water and Livelihood Security: Emerging Issues in a Time of Climate Change
Box 5.7 Conserving Biodiversity through Sustainable Land Management in India
Uttar Pradesh is India’s most populous state and also one of the poorest. While agriculture dominates Uttar Pradesh’s economy, a growing challenge in the state is the declining productivity of food grains (wheat and rice) due to water- related land degradation such as sodification (making the land too salty to grow crops). Poorly managed irrigation has left millions of hectares of land barren. Under the Uttar Pradesh Sodic Lands Reclamation Project I (IDA, $54.7 million; 1993) and II (IDA, $194.1 million; 1998), a total of 253,715 hectares of formerly sodic lands have been reclaimed and are being productively farmed. Within the reclaimed lands, soil quality and productivity have increased. Improved crop husbandry led to increased cropping intensity from a baseline of 63 percent to an average of 198 percent. Rice yields increased from 0.9 to 3.5 t/ha, and wheat from 0.4 to 3.0 t/ha. Environmental quality improved as evidenced by an over five-fold increase in floral and faunal diversity as well as microbial biomass in sampled areas. The market value of land increased fourfold. More than 552,000 households (more than 1 million people) benefited directly from project activities. Wage rates doubled and additional rural jobs for 86,710 persons/year were generated from expansion and intensification of cultivated areas. More importantly, the poverty level declined from 72 percent to 48 percent. This shows that investing in sustainable land management is good for poverty alleviation and environmental stewardship at the grassroots level.
Ecoagriculture is an umbrella term for a diverse set of pastures are considered to be degraded and are of little strategies for managing agricultural landscapes in ways economic and ecological value. A BNPP-funded project, that enhance sustainable agricultural production and implemented through the Tropical Agricultural Research rural livelihoods, and also conserve or restore biodiversity and Higher Education Center (CATIE), is exploring the and ecosystem services at a meaningful landscape scale. relationships between silvopastoral systems, biodiversity The Bank is providing DGF funding to Ecoagriculture conservation, and farmer livelihoods to determine how Partners, an NGO that is mobilizing partnerships among silvopastoral systems contribute to both conservation and farmers, conservationists, agriculturalists, public land development goals. This research will provide important managers, agribusiness, and researchers to support, information on more sustainable resource management develop, and promote ecoagriculture innovations. that can contribute to biodiversity conservation and The project will develop indicators and methods for carbon storage while improving farmers’ livelihoods. documenting the ecological and economic value of different agricultural practices and test these through in-depth case studies. A draft “Toolkit” set of basic indicators and methods is now being developed. Water Services In Central America, the Bank has been supporting improved livestock management linked to payments Climate change, rising temperatures, and the increasing for ecosystem services (see Box 3.7). The large-scale need for irrigated agriculture in arid regions will all conversion of forests to pastures in Central America has increase pressure on scarce water resources. Overall, the resulted in the loss of biodiversity and the disruption of greatest human requirement for freshwater resources is ecological processes. Pastures are often poorly managed for crop irrigation, particularly for farming in arid regions and quickly become degraded, with reduced pasture and in the great paddy fields of Asia. Municipal water productivity. Currently, at least 30 percent of the region’s accounts for less than a tenth of human water use, but
— 61 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Box 5.8 Conservation Farming in Practice in South Africa
A GEF-funded MSP showed that conservation farming on some South African farms reduced input costs, increased profits, and improved sustainability. These farming practices also conserve biodiversity, contribute to carbon sequestration, and improve the quantity and quality of water runoff.
Farming for flowers on the Bokkeveld Plateau
From the western rim to the eastern margin of the Bokkeveld Plateau, rainfall decreases from 500 mm to 200 mm per year over a distance of 15 km. Over this transition, the vegetation changes from fynbos on infertile sandy soils through renosterveld to succulent karoo. The area supports about 1,350 plant species, 97 of which are endangered. The small village of Nieuwoudtville on the Bokkeveld Plateau is the “bulb capital of the world,” with a staggering 241 bulb species. The richest concentration of bulbs, both in terms of species and individuals, occurs on the highly fertile clays. Unfortunately, large areas of bulb-rich veld have been ploughed up and replaced with cereals and pasture crops.
About 30 years ago, one farmer—Neil McGregor, on the farm Glen Lyon,—decided that this form of agriculture was not sustainable. Instead, he began to nurture the indigenous veld to provide better plant cover. With the diversity of indigenous plants, McGregor was able to maintain productivity for much longer through the dry summer season than his neighbours did with their planted crops. By using biodiversity-friendly practices, and refraining from the use of pesticides, he was able to boost sheep productivity and reduce his inputs. Moreover, he found that aardvark and porcupine, considered troublesome on crop farms, actually promoted the proliferation of bulbs and hence forage for his livestock. Therefore, he abandoned attempts at controlling these so-called problem animals. One consequence of this conservation farming was unparalleled displays of wild flowers with a profusion of bulb species flowering from mid-winter through to late spring. These displays draw tourists to Namaqualand, catalyzing additional tourist income to the farm and district. Glen Lyon has become a role model in the region and many farmers are now following conservation farming practices. Recently Glen Lyon farm has been declared a national botanical garden in recognition of its biodiversity values.
Getting the most out of the veld
The semi-arid summer rainfall area of South Africa known as the Nama Karoo is characterized by highly variable rainfall from year to year. The natural veld comprises a very diverse flora of palatable shrubs and grasses interspersed with unpalatable shrubs. This area also supports an extremely important livestock industry, based mainly on wool and mutton production. Over the last century, the condition of ranch land over much of the Nama Karoo has deteriorated, with proliferation of a few unpalatable species replacing more palatable species.
One farm in Elandsfontein in the Beaufort West district instituted a grazing regime that simulated pre-farming natural conditions when the veld was grazed by migrating herds of ungulates. Livestock were separated into small units and kept in one area until that area was well-grazed before being moved to another unit. The condition of the veld improved. Livestock were forced to eat both palatable and unpalatable plant species. Since the unpalatable plants are not adapted to being grazed, they lose their competitive edge, become weakened, and their numbers reduced. Secondly, the higher number of small management areas ensured a lengthened rest period between exposure to grazing, thereby enabling much of the range land to recover. Studies show that implementation of this system resulted in the highest productivity in the district, as well as ecological buffering and greater resilience of the veld against drought, with benefits both for biodiversity and production.
— 62 — Biodiversity Conservation and Food, Water and Livelihood Security: Emerging Issues in a Time of Climate Change clean drinking water is a critical need. Today, half of the Vienna, Barcelona, Nairobi, Dar Es Salaam, Johannesburg, world’s population lives in towns and cities and one-third Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. Elsewhere, half of this urban population live without clean drinking of Puerto Rico’s drinking water comes from the last water. These billion have-nots are unevenly distributed: sizable area of tropical forest on the island, which is 700 million city dwellers in Asia, 150 million in Africa, in the Puerto Rico National Park. Quito, the capital of and 120 million in Latin America and the Caribbean. Ecuador, draws its water from a system of protected With expanding urban needs, cities face immediate areas. Mount Kenya , the second highest mountain in problems of access to clean water and mounting Africa, is one of Kenya’s five main “water towers” and problems of supply. In recent years, governments and provides water to over 2 million people (see Box 5.9). city councils have begun to take an increasing interest in the opportunities for offsetting or reducing some of the costs of maintaining urban water supplies—and, perhaps even more importantly, water quality—through management of natural resources and particularly forests. Looking Forward: The Strategic
Water provides a powerful argument for protection Framework for Climate Change and of natural habitats. Among the world’s largest cities, many draw some or all of their drinking water from Development protected forests, including Jakarta, Mumbai (formerly The WBG is developing a new Stategic Framework for Bombay), Karachi, Tokyo, Singapore, Mexico City, New Climate Change and Development (SFCCD) to address the York, Bogota, Rio de Janeiro, Los Angeles, Cali, Brasilia, challenges of climate change and adaptation. In addition
Box 5.9 Protected Areas as Water Towers
Protected areas are usually established for biodiversity conservation, but many have a much broader relevance to sustainable development and climate change adaptation. Many mountain protected areas can be justified through provision of ecosystem services, such as clean water, soil conservation, and protection of downstream and vulnerable communities from natural hazards such as floods and unstable hillsides.
A number of Bank biodiversity projects have provided funding to protected areas in forest watersheds, which safeguard the drinking supplies for some of the world’s major cities. Panda reserves in the Qinling Mountains, China, protect the drinking water supplies for Xi’an. The Gunung Gede-Pangrango in Indonesia safeguards the drinking water supplies of Jakarta, Bogor, and Sukabumi and generates water with an estimated value of $1.5 billion an- nually for agriculture and domestic use. Similarly, Kerinci N.P. in Sumatra safeguards water supplies for more than 3.5 million people and 7 million hectares of agricultural land, while two of the Andean protected areas in Ecuador provide drinking water supplies for 80 percent of Quito’s population. The La Visite and Pic Macaya national parks in Haiti safeguard water supplies for the cities of Port au Prince and Les Cayes respectively. In Mexico, the Monarch Butterfly Reserve protects an amazing biological phenomenon and the drinking water of Mexico City. The Aberdare Mountains and Mount Kenya national parks in Kenya provide critical water to Nairobi, while the Udzungwas in the eastern arc mountains of Tanzania supply Dar es Salaam. In South Africa, the recognized value of the mountains of the Cape Peninsula and Drakensberg in providing water supplies for Cape Town, Johannesburg, and Durban has led to serious national investments to address invasive species through the Working for Water programs, as well as biodiversity investments through the World Bank.
— 63 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio to focusing on immediate actions to promote cleaner and 44 Emphasizing the multiple benefits of forest conserva- renewable energy, the SFCCD recognizes that ecosystems tion and sustainable forest management (carbon and biodiversity provide essential services that underpin sequestration, water quality, reducing risks from natural every aspect of human life, including food security, carbon hazards, poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation) storage, climate regulation, livelihoods, ethnic diversity, 44 Promoting investments in natural ecosystems as a and cultural and spiritual enrichment. Enhanced protection response to mitigation (avoided deforestation) and and management of natural habitats and biological adaptation (wetland services) resources can contribute to climate change mitigation, 44 Integrating indigenous crops and traditional knowledge as well as providing effective and low-cost options to on agricultural and water management into agriculture reduce vulnerability and adapt to climate change. projects as part of adaptation strategies 44 Promoting more sustainable natural resource manage- Bank projects and programs are already supporting ment strategies linked to agriculture, land use and biodiversity conservation and protection of natural restoration, forest management and fisheries habitats as effective mitigation and adaptation 44 Developing new financing mechanisms and integrating strategies, but more needs to be done, including: biodiversity benefits into new adaptation and transfor- mation funds 44 Using strategic environment assessments as tools 44 Protecting terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosys- to promote protection of ecosystem services and tems and ecological corridors to conserve terrestrial and biodiversity aquatic biodiversity 44 Monitoring investments in ecosystem protection within 44 Integrating protection of natural habitats into strategies mainstream lending projects and documenting good to reduce vulnerability and disaster risks (including practices for dissemination and replication climate change and natural disasters such as floods, 44 Developing new tools that measure the benefits of cyclones) integrated approaches (ecosystem services, biodiversity, 44 Scaling up country dialogue and sector work on carbon and resilience). valuation of ecosystem services and the role of natural ecosystems and ecosystem services in underpinning economic development Climate change has become the key environmental 44 Emphasizing the linkages between protection of concern of the decade, and governments and donors natural habitats and regulation of water flows and around the globe are focused on this issue. Much quality of water, essential for agriculture, food security, attention is rightly focused on reducing carbon emissions and domestic and industrial supplies and greenhouse gases from industrial, energy, and 44 Scaling up investments for protected areas and transport sources through reduction in fuel use and ecosystem services linked to sector lending, such improved technologies. Nevertheless, as countries as infrastructure, agriculture, tourism, water supply, look to medium and longer-term mitigation and fisheries, forestry adaptation measures, protection of natural habitats 44 Promoting greater action on management of invasive should be a key part of climate change strategies. alien species, which are linked to land degradation, Strengthened support for protected areas, and more food security, and water supply and quality sustainable resource management, can contribute to adaptation strategies, as well as to protection of the biological resources and ecosystem services on which the world’s poorest communities depend.
— 64 — Bibliography
Damania, R., Seidensticker, J. Whitten, T., Sethi, G. World Bank. 2003. Cornerstones for Conservation. MacKinnon, K., Kiss, A. and A. Kushlin. 2008. A World Bank Assistance for Protected Areas 1988- Future for Wild Tigers. World Bank, Washington, D.C. 2003. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. World Bank. 2004. Ensuring the Future: The World Bank and Climate Change 2007. The Fourth Assessment Report Biodiversity 1988-2004. World Bank, Washington, D.C. (AR4). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
World Bank 2006a. Mountains to Coral Reefs. The World Pierce, S., Cowling R., Sandwith, T. and MacKinnon, K. Bank and Biodiversity. World Bank, Washington, D.C. 2002. Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development. Case
Studies from South Africa. World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank, 2006b. Scaling Up Marine Management: The Role of Marine Protected Quintero J. D. 2007. Mainstreaming Conservation Areas. World Bank, Washington, D.C. in Infrastructure Projects. Case Studies from Latin
America. World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank and UNDP 2007. Reducing Threats to Protected Areas. Lessons from the Field. World Bank, Washington. Sobrevila, C. 2008. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in
Biodiversity Conservation. The Natural but Often World Bank, 2007. Climate Change and Adaptation. Forgotten Partners. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Environment Matters.
Vergara, W. 2005. Adapting to Climate Change. World Bank, 2008. Agriculture for Development. World Lessons Learned, Work in Progress and Development Report. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Proposed Next Steps for the World Bank in Latin America. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
— 65 — The Bank’s Biodiversity Portfolio
— 66 — Annex 1
The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio
— 67 — Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Africa Madagascar Forest Management 1988 Closed IDA 22.60 9.20 2.86 * * * * * and Protection Africa Ghana Forest Resource 1989 Closed IDA 64.60 5.10 3.11 * Management Africa Madagascar Environment I 1990 Closed IDA 85.53 45.05 9.55 * * * * * Africa Guinea Forestry and 1990 Closed IDA 21.00 4.00 2.46 * Fisheries Management Africa Cote d’Ivoire Forestry Sector 1990 Closed IBRD 147.80 8.40 8.40 * * Africa Central Natural Resources 1990 Closed IDA 26.20 3.00 2.18 * * * * * * * * African Management Republic Africa Burkina Environmental 1991 Closed IDA 25.20 3.80 2.48 * Faso Management Africa Mauritius Environmental 1991 Closed IBRD 20.53 4.40 2.00 * Monitoring and Development Africa Kenya Forestry 1991 Closed IDA 83.80 39.49 0.00 * * Development Africa Nigeria Environmental 1992 Closed IDA 37.90 3.30 2.18 * * * Management Africa Lesotho Lesotho Highlands 1992 Closed IBRD 24.14 5.55 4.60 * Water Phase 1A Africa Benin Natural Resource 1992 Closed IDA 24.40 1.70 0.99 * * * * * * * Management Africa Mali Natural Resource 1992 Closed IDA 32.10 6.78 4.31 * * * * * Management Africa Kenya Protected Areas 1992 Closed IDA 143.00 143.00 60.00 * * * * * and Wildlife Services Africa Seychelles Biodiversity Conserva- 1993 Closed GEF REG 2.00 2.00 1.80 * tion and Marine Pollution Abatement Africa Ghana Coastal Wetlands 1993 Closed GEF REG 8.30 8.30 7.20 * * * * Management Africa Seychelles Environment and 1993 Closed IBRD 5.00 0.19 0.17 * * * Transport Africa Ghana Environmental 1993 Closed IDA 27.60 0.99 0.66 * * * Resource Management Africa Gabon Forestry and 1993 Closed IDA 38.20 12.44 6.44 * * * Environment Africa Congo Wildlands Protection 1993 Closed GEF REG 13.90 13.90 10.10 * * * * * and Management Africa Cameroon Biodiversity Conserva- 1995 Closed GEF REG 12.39 12.39 5.96 * * * * * * * tion and Management
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 68 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Africa Uganda Conservation of the 1995 Closed GEF REG 4.89 4.89 4.00 * * * * * * * Bwindi Impenetrable and Mgahinga Gorilla National Parks Africa Benin Environmental 1995 Closed IDA 9.30 4.65 4.00 * * Management Africa Malawi Lake Malawi 1995 Closed GEF REG 5.44 5.44 5.00 * Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation Africa Central Livestock Develop- 1995 Closed IDA 32.45 0.30 0.15 * * * African ment and Rangeland Republic Management Africa Mauritius Biodiversity 1996 Closed GEF REG 1.60 1.60 1.20 * * * * * * * Restoration Africa Uganda Environmental Man- 1996 Closed IDA 15.20 1.38 1.08 * * agement Capacity Building Africa Regional Pilot Community- 1996 Closed GEF REG 13.19 13.19 7.00 * * * * * * * (West Africa) Based Natural Resource and Wildlife Management Africa Namibia Strengthening Marine 1996 Closed TF (IDF) 0.46 0.30 0.30 * * Environmental Research Capacity Africa Malawi Environmental 1997 Closed IDA 13.70 6.85 6.20 * * * * Support Africa Zambia Environmental 1997 Closed IDA 20.80 10.40 6.40 * * * * Support Program Africa Regional Lake Victoria Environ- 1997 Closed GEF REG 35.00 14.15 13.30 * * (East Africa) mental Management Africa Regional Lake Victoria Environ- 1997 Closed IDA 44.40 8.60 8.60 * * (East Africa) mental Management Africa Kenya National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.16 0.16 0.16 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report Africa Eritrea National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.28 0.28 0.28 * * Strategy, Action Plan and Report Africa Regional Regional Environment 1997 Closed GEF REG 19.79 19.79 4.10 * * * (Central Information Africa) Management (REIMP) Africa Cote d’Ivoire Rural Land Manage- 1997 Closed IDA 71.50 1.64 0.94 * * * * * ment and Community Infrastructure Development Africa Madagascar Second Environment 1997 Closed GEF REG 20.80 20.80 12.80 * * * * * * * Program
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 69 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Africa Madagascar Second Environment 1997 Closed IDA 134.20 56.00 12.52 * * * * * Program Africa Senegal Sustainable and 1997 Closed GEF REG 4.70 4.70 4.70 * * * Participatory Energy Management Africa Senegal Sustainable and 1997 Closed IDA 15.20 4.38 1.50 * * * * Participatory Energy Management Africa Kenya Tana River National 1997 Closed GEF REG 7.14 7.14 6.20 * * Primate Reserve Africa Mozambique Transfrontier 1997 Closed GEF REG 8.10 8.10 5.00 * * * * * Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Africa South Africa Cape Peninsula 1998 Closed GEF REG 91.20 91.20 12.30 * * * * * * * * Biodiversity Africa Ghana High Forest 1998 Closed GEF REG 8.70 8.70 8.70 * * * * * * Conservation Africa Chad Household Energy 1998 Closed IDA 6.31 1.36 1.14 * * Africa Lesotho Lesotho Highlands 1998 Closed IBRD 113.20 33.35 1.56 * Water Phase 1B Africa Uganda National Biodiversity 1998 Closed GEF EA 0.13 0.13 0.13 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report Africa Ghana Natural Resource 1998 Closed IDA 53.50 53.50 20.00 * * * * * * Management Africa Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation 1998 Closed IDA 70.00 70.00 62.50 * * * * and Conservation Africa Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation 1998 Closed GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * * * and Conservation Africa Mozambique Agricultural Sector 1999 IDA 216.50 25.10 1.00 * * * * Public Expenditure Program (PROAGRI) Africa South Africa Conservation of 1999 Closed GEF 1.72 1.72 0.75 * * * * Globally Significant MSP Biodiversity in Agri- cultural Landscapes through Conservati- on Farming Africa Uganda Institutional Capacity 1999 Closed GEF REG 2.00 2.00 2.00 * * * Building for Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use (ICB-PAMSU) Africa Uganda Institutional Capacity 1999 Closed IDA 18.29 18.29 12.37 * * * * * Building for Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use (ICB-PAMSU)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 70 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Africa Uganda Kibale Forest 1999 Closed GEF 4.15 4.15 0.75 * * * * * * * Wild Coffee MSP Africa Kenya Lewa Wildlife 1999 Closed GEF 3.94 3.94 0.75 * * * Conservation MSP Africa Seychelles Management of Avian 1999 Closed GEF 1.06 1.06 0.74 * * * * * * * Ecosystems in MSP Seychelles Africa Regional Oil Spill Contingency 1999 Closed GEF REG 4.64 1.17 0.98 * * (Coastal East Planning Africa) Africa Sao Tome & BSAP, First National 2000 Closed GEF EA 0.16 0.16 0.16 * Principe Report and Clearing House Mechanism Africa Mozambique Coastal & Marine Bio- 2000 GEF REG 4.10 4.10 4.10 * * * * * * * vidersity Management Africa Mozambique Coastal & Marine Bio- 2000 IDA 6.40 6.40 5.60 * * * * * * * vidersity Management Africa Regional Community Outreach 2000 Closed GEF 0.89 0.89 0.73 * * * (Southern Programme for Con- MSP Africa) servation and Sustain- able Use of Bio- logical Resources Africa South Africa Conservation Plan- 2000 Closed GEF 0.86 0.86 0.74 * * ning for Biodiversity MSP in the Thicket Biome Africa Seychelles Marine Ecosystem 2000 Closed GEF 1.40 1.40 0.74 * * * * * * Management MSP Africa Benin National Parks Conser- 2000 Closed GEF REG 26.14 26.14 6.76 * * * * vation and Manage- ment Program Africa South Africa Sustainable Protected 2000 Closed GEF 5.37 5.37 0.75 * * Area Development in MSP Namaqualand Africa Burkina Faso Community-Based 2001 Closed IDA 114.85 3.82 2.22 * * Rural Development Africa Ethiopia Conservation and 2001 GEF REG 1.81 1.81 1.81 * * * * * * Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants Africa Ethiopia Sustainable Land 2008 GEF REG 9.00 3.50 1.20 * * * Management Africa Ethiopia Sustainable Land 2008 IDA 28.80 0.35 0.80 * * * Management Africa Ethiopia Conservation and 2001 IDA 3.37 3.37 0.78 * * * * Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants Africa Regional Coral Reef Monitoring 2001 Closed GEF 2.41 2.41 0.74 * * * * (Coastal East Network MSP Africa)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 71 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Africa Malawi Mulanje Biodiversity 2001 Closed GEF REG 8.02 8.02 6.75 * * * * * * * * Conservation Africa Mauritius Restoration of Round 2001 GEF 1.40 1.40 0.75 * * Island MSP Africa Rwanda Rural Sector Support 2001 IDA 53.00 18.97 18.97 * * * Africa Eritrea Assessment of 2002 GEF EA 0.19 0.19 0.17 * * Capacity Building Needs for Biodiversity Africa Uganda Environment 2002 IDA 24.10 12.05 11.00 * * Management and Capacity Building II Africa Uganda Institutional Capacity 2002 Closed TF (IDF) 0.43 0.43 0.43 * * Building for Integ- ration of Indigenous Knowledge Africa Gambia Integrated Coastal 2002 GEF 1.77 1.77 0.96 * and Marine Biodi- MSP versity Management Africa Tanzania Lower Kihansi 2002 IDA 6.40 6.40 6.30 * * * Environmental Management Africa Lesotho Maloti-Drakensberg 2002 GEF REG 8.40 8.40 7.32 * * * * * * * * Transfrontier Conservation and Development Area Africa South Africa Maloti-Drakensberg 2002 GEF REG 33.89 33.89 15.25 * * * * * * * Transfrontier Conser- vation and Develop- ment Area Africa Nigeria Micro-watershed and 2002 GEF REG 8.00 8.00 8.00 * * * Environmental Management Program Africa Nigeria Micro-watershed and 2002 IDA 107.35 12.88 12.00 * * * * * * Environmental Man- agement Program Africa Burkina Faso Natural Resources 2002 GEF REG 13.46 10.09 6.90 * * Management Partnership Africa Ghana Northern Savanna 2002 GEF REG 16.80 16.80 7.90 * * * * * * * * Biodiversity Conservation Africa Ghana Northern Savanna Bio- 2002 IDA 11.30 11.30 11.30 * * diversity Conservation Africa Burkina Faso Partnership for Natu- 2002 GEF REG 13.63 13.63 7.50 * * * ral Ecosystem Mana- gement (PAGEN)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 72 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Africa Uganda Supplemental Credit 2002 Closed IDA 4.64 2.65 2.57 * * * * * to the Lake Victoria Environmental Management Africa Zambia Sustainable Land 2002 GEF 1.35 0.25 0.25 * * * Management in the MSP Zambian Miombo Woodland Ecosystem Africa Niger Community-Based 2003 GEF REG 43.83 6.00 2.50 * * * Ecosystem Management Africa Tanzania Eastern Arc Forests 2003 GEF REG 7.00 7.00 7.00 * * * * * * Conservation and Management Africa Tanzania Eastern Arc Forests 2003 IDA 38.67 38.67 31.10 * * * * * * Conservation and Management Africa Nigeria Local Empowerment 2003 GEF REG 91.33 9.81 8.00 * * * * and Environment Management Africa Nigeria National Capacity 2003 Closed GEF EA 0.23 0.06 0.06 * * Needs Self-Assess- ment for Environ- mental Management Africa Uganda Protected Areas 2003 IDA 30.00 30.00 23.40 * * * * * * * Management and Sustainable Use Africa Uganda Protected Areas 2003 GEF REG 8.00 8.00 8.00 * * * * * * * Management and Sustainable Use Supplemental Credit Africa South Africa Richtersveld Com- 2003 GEF 2.45 2.45 0.88 * * * * * munity Biodiversity MSP Conservation Africa Kenya Agricultural Producti- 2004 IDA 73.15 13.20 3.80 * * * * vity and Sustainable Land Management Africa South Africa C.A.P.E. Biodiversity 2004 GEF REG 55.13 55.13 9.00 * * * * * * * * and Sustainable Development Africa Ghana Community-based 2004 GEF 1.48 1.48 0.85 * * * * * * Integrated Natural MSP Resources Manage- ment in Okyeman Africa South Africa Greater Addo 2004 GEF REG 39.94 39.94 5.50 * * * Elephant National Park
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 73 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Africa Seychelles Improving Manage- 2004 Closed GEF 1.88 1.88 0.81 * * * * * * ment of NGO and Pri- MSP vately Owned Nature Reserves and High Biodiversity Islands Africa Tanzania Innovations in Live- 2004 GEF 4.55 4.55 0.88 * * * * stock & Wildlife MSP Integration Adjacent to Protected Areas Africa Namibia Integrated Com- 2004 GEF REG 32.43 11.26 4.28 * * * munity-Based Eco- system Management Africa Senegal Integrated Marine & 2004 GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * * * * Coastal Biodiversity Conservation Africa Senegal Integrated Marine & 2004 IDA 11.49 11.49 2.50 * * * * * Coastal Biodiversity Conservation Africa Tanzania Lolkisale Biodiversity 2004 GEF IFC 0.89 0.89 0.48 * * Conservation Support Africa Burkina Faso Sahel Integrated 2004 GEF REG 4.91 1.38 1.28 * Lowland Ecosystem Management Africa Regional Senegal River Basin 2004 GEF REG 21.20 0.15 0.15 * (West Africa) Water and Environ- mental Management Africa Madagascar Third Environment 2004 GEF REG 9.00 9.00 9.00 * * * * * * Program Africa Madagascar Third Environment 2004 IDA 148.90 71.50 31.50 * * * * * * Program Africa Regional Transboundary Diag- 2004 GEF 1.00 0.20 0.20 * * * * (East Africa) nostic Analysis and MSP Strategic Action Pro- gram Development for the Lake Victoria Basin Africa Regional Transboundary Diag- 2004 IDA 5.60 1.12 0.60 * * * * (East Africa) nostic Analysis and Strategic Action Pro- gram Development for the Lake Victoria Basin Africa Burundi Agricultural Rehabili- 2005 GEF REG 5.00 0.50 0.50 * tation and Support (PRASAB) Africa Guinea- Coastal and Biodi- 2005 GEF REG 5.15 5.15 5.15 * * * * * Bissau versity Management Africa Guinea- Coastal and Biodi- 2005 IDA 4.40 4.40 1.50 * * * * * Bissau versity Management
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 74 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Africa Chad Community Based 2005 GEF REG 6.00 6.00 6.00 * * * * * * Integrated Ecosystem Management Africa Chad Community Based 2005 IDA 46.00 8.39 2.80 * Integrated Ecosystem Management Africa Mali Gourma Biodiversity 2005 GEF REG 9.08 9.08 5.50 * * * Conservation Africa Rwanda Integrated Manage- 2005 GEF REG 5.30 2.65 2.15 * * * * ment of Critical Eco- systems Africa Tanzania Lake Victoria Environ- 2005 Closed IDA 3.60 0.81 0.79 * * * * mental Management Second Supplemental Credit Africa Tanzania Marine and Coastal 2005 GEF REG 10.00 5.68 4.90 * * * * * Environmental Management Africa Tanzania Marine and Coastal 2005 TF 1.88 1.88 1.88 * * * Environmental (JSDF) Management Africa Tanzania Marine and Coastal 2005 IDA 52.75 25.50 20.00 * * * * * Environmental Management Africa Namibia Namibian Coastal 2005 GEF REG 29.08 29.08 4.90 * * * Conservation and Management Africa Gabon Natural Resources 2005 GEF REG 10.00 7.87 7.87 * * * * * * Management Africa Gabon Natural Resources 2005 IDA 31.48 7.87 7.87 * Management Africa Regional Protection and Strate- 2005 GEF REG 13.32 1.74 1.74 * * * (Southern gic Uses of Ground- Africa) water Resources in the Transboundary Limpopo Basin and Drought Prone Areas Africa Liberia Sapo National Park 2005 GEF MSP 2.43 2.43 1.00 * * * * * Africa Zambia Support for Economic 2005 IDA 28.15 10.18 8.00 * * * Expansion and Diversification (SEED) Africa Zambia Support for Economic 2005 GEF REG 4.00 4.00 4.00 * * * Expansion and Diversification (SEED) Africa Zambia Support for Economic 2005 TF 6.00 6.00 6.00 * * * Expansion and (PHRD) Diversification (SEED)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 75 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Africa Mozambique Transfrontier Con- 2005 GEF REG 10.00 10.00 10.00 * * * * servation Areas and Tourism Development Africa Mozambique Transfrontier Con- 2005 IDA 23.72 21.35 15.00 * * * * servation Areas and Tourism Development Africa Kenya Western Kenya Integ- 2005 GEF REG 8.30 8.30 4.10 * * * * * rated Ecosystem Management Project Africa Kenya Western Kenya Integ- 2005 TF 0.40 0.40 0.40 * * * * * rated Ecosystem (PHRD) Management Project Africa Madagascar Andasibe-Mantadia 2006 CF 11.50 11.50 7.50 * * * Biodiversity Corridor Africa Guinea Coastal Marine and 2006 IDA 18.53 18.53 11.70 * * Biodiversity Management Africa Guinea Community-Based 2006 GEF REG 7.00 2.50 2.50 * Land Management Africa Guinea Community-Based 2006 IDA 11.70 4.50 2.50 * Land Management Africa Cameroon Forest and Environ- 2006 GEF REG 10.00 10.00 10.00 * * * ment Sector Program Africa Cameroon Forest and Environ- 2006 IDA 41.80 12.42 5.00 * * * ment Sector Program Africa Benin Forests and Adjacent 2006 GEF REG 27.00 27.00 6.00 * * * Lands Management Africa Kenya Greenbelt Movement 2006 CF 2.20 2.20 2.20 * * Africa Nigeria Second National 2006 GEF REG 63.22 12.50 10.03 * * * * Fadama Development Critical Ecosystem Management Africa Gabon Strengthening 2006 GEF REG 26.99 26.99 10.00 * Capacity for Managing National Parks and Biodiversity Africa Cameroon Sustainable Agro- 2006 GEF REG 6.30 3.00 3.00 * * * * Pastoral and Land Management Promotion Africa Mozambique Transfrontier Conser- 2006 TF 3.72 1.00 1.00 * * * * vation Areas and Tou- (PHRD) rism Development Africa Tanzania Lower Kihansi 2007 IDA 3.50 3.50 3.50 * * * Environmental Management 2 Africa Kenya Natural Resource 2007 IDA 68.50 3.03 2.82 * * * * Management
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 76 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Africa Regional Regional Biosafety 2007 GEF REG 24.30 10.00 5.40 * (West Africa) Africa Regional Southwest Indian 2007 GEF REG 35.00 8.50 7.41 * (Coastal East Ocean Fisheries Africa) Africa Regional Western Indian Ocean 2007 GEF REG 26.00 8.70 8.70 * (Coastal East Marine Highway Deve- Africa) lopment and Coastal and Marine Conta- mination Prevention Africa Kenya Western Kenya 2007 IDA 100.00 20.70 19.60 * * Community-Driven Development and Flood Mitigation Africa Benin Community-based 2008 GEF REG 11.60 11.60 4.30 * * * Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management Africa Liberia Consolidation of Pro- 2008 GEF 5.40 5.40 0.86 * * * tected Areas Network MSP Africa Liberia Forestry Sector 2008 TF 2.00 1.10 1.10 * * * * * Management (Liberia) Africa Senegal Energy Sector 1998 Closed IDA 100.00 1.00 1.00 * * Adjustment Africa Guinea Coastal Marine and 2006 GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * Biodiversity Management EAP Indonesia First Forestry Institu- 1988 Closed IBRD 63.00 6.40 3.79 * * * tions and Conservation EAP Malaysia Sabah Land Settle- ment and Environ- mental Management 1989 Closed IBRD 216.00 1.20 1.20 * * * EAP Indonesia Second Forestry 1990 Closed IBRD 33.10 3.10 1.87 * * * * Institutions and Conservation EAP Philippines Environment and 1991 Closed IBRD 280.20 140.10 79.00 * * Natural Resources Sector Adjustment EAP Philippines Environment and 1991 Closed IDA 66.00 33.00 33.00 * * Natural Resources Sector Adjustment EAP China Biodiversity Conser- 1993 Closed GEF EA 0.40 0.40 0.40 * vation Action Plan EAP China Environmental 1993 Closed IDA 76.00 29.40 20.00 * * * Technical Assistance EAP Indonesia Biodiversity 1994 Closed GEF REG 11.40 11.40 7.20 * * * Collections
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 77 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
EAP Philippines Conservation of Prio- 1994 Closed GEF REG 22.86 22.86 20.00 * * * * * * * rity Protected Areas EAP Lao PDR Forest Management 1994 Closed IDA 15.30 7.75 4.35 * * * * * and Conservation EAP China Forest Resource 1994 Closed IDA 333.10 20.55 12.34 * * * * * Development and Conservation EAP Indonesia Integrated Swamps 1994 Closed IBRD 106.00 3.10 1.89 * * Development EAP Lao PDR Wildlife and Protected 1994 Closed GEF REG 5.20 5.20 5.00 * * * * Areas Conservation EAP China Nature Reserves 1995 Closed GEF REG 23.60 23.60 17.90 * * * * * * Management EAP Indonesia Kerinci Seblat ICDP 1996 Closed GEF REG 15.00 15.00 15.00 * * * * EAP Indonesia Kerinci Seblat ICDP 1996 Closed IBRD 32.20 32.20 19.20 * * * EAP Philippines Community Based Re- 1998 IBRD 67.50 7.80 7.80 * * * * * source Management EAP Indonesia Coral Reef Manag- 1998 Closed IBRD 8.70 8.70 6.90 * * * * ement and Rehabi- litation (COREMAP) EAP Indonesia Coral Reef Rehabi- 1998 Closed GEF REG 4.10 4.10 4.10 * * * * litation and Manage- ment (COREMAP) EAP Vietnam Forest Protection and 1998 Closed IDA 32.39 7.00 5.00 * * * * Rural Development EAP China Sustainable Resource 1998 Closed IBRD 200.00 15.60 9.57 * * * * Coastal Development EAP Lao PDR District Upland 1999 Closed IDA 2.25 2.25 2.00 * * * * * * * Development and Conservation EAP Samoa Marine Biodiversity 1999 GEF 1.10 1.10 0.90 * * * * Protection and MSP Management EAP Papua New National Biodiversity 1999 GEF EA 0.18 0.18 0.18 * Guinea Strategy, Action Plan and Report EAP Mongolia Assessment of Capa- 2000 GEF EA 0.23 0.22 0.20 * city Building Needs and Country Specific Priorities in Biodiver- sity EAP Indonesia Biodiversity Strategy 2000 GEF EA 0.44 0.44 0.44 * and Action Plan (IBSAP)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 78 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAP Vietnam Coastal Wetlands Pro- 2000 Closed IDA 65.60 15.00 7.27 * * * * * tection and Develop- ment EAP Indonesia Conservation of 2000 GEF 1.04 0.74 0.74 * * * * Elephant Landscape MSP in Aceh Province, Sumatra EAP Cambodia Forest Concession 2000 Closed IDA 5.42 1.10 0.98 * * Management and Control EAP Regional Mekong River Com- 2000 GEF REG 16.30 5.50 3.71 * * * (East Asia) mission Water Utilization EAP Philippines Mindanao Rural 2000 Closed IBRD 39.70 0.99 0.68 * * * * Development EAP Philippines Mindanao Rural Devel- 2000 Closed GEF REG 1.30 1.30 1.30 * * * * * * * * opment and Coastal Resource Conservation EAP Cambodia Biodiversity and Pro- 2001 Closed GEF REG 3.00 3.00 2.75 * * * * * * * tected Areas Manage- ment EAP Cambodia Biodiversity and Pro- 2001 Closed IDA 1.91 1.91 1.91 * * * * * * * tected Areas Manage- ment EAP Mongolia Biodiversity Loss and 2001 GEF 1.46 1.46 0.83 * * * * Permafrost Melt in MSP Lake Hovsgol National Park EAP Vietnam Conservation of Pu 2001 Closed GEF 1.31 1.31 0.75 * * * * * * * * Luong-Cuc Phuong MSP Limestone Landscape EAP Vietnam Hon Mun Marine 2001 Closed GEF 2.17 2.17 1.00 * * * * * * * Protected Area Pilot MSP EAP Indonesia The Greater Berbak- 2001 GEF 1.60 1.60 0.73 * * * * * Sembilang Integrated MSP Coastal Wetlands Conservation EAP Indonesia Indonesia Forests and 2002 GEF 1.23 1.23 0.94 * * * Media (INFORM) MSP EAP China Lake Dianchi Fresh- 2002 GEF 1.86 1.86 1.00 * * * * water Biodiversity MSP Restoration EAP Indonesia Sangihe-Talaud Forest 2002 Closed GEF 1.14 1.14 0.82 * * * * * * Conservation MSP EAP China Sustainable Forestry 2002 GEF REG 16.00 16.00 16.00 * * * * * Development EAP China Sustainable Forestry 2002 IBRD 214.58 26.85 11.75 * * * * * * Development
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 79 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAP Mongolia Conservation of the 2003 GEF 1.93 1.93 1.00 * * * * Eg-Uur Watershed MSP EAP China Gansu and Xinjiang 2003 GEF REG 10.50 8.30 8.30 * * * * * * * Pastoral Development EAP China Gansu and Xinjiang 2003 IBRD 98.72 3.00 1.99 * * * * * Pastoral Development EAP Lao PDR Sustainable Forestry 2003 Closed IDA 16.45 1.10 0.66 * * * * * for Rural Development EAP Philippines Asian Conservation 2004 GEF REG 16.90 16.90 1.60 * * * * * * Foundation (Tranche I) EAP Vietnam Conservation of Pu 2004 Closed TF 0.32 0.32 0.32 * * * * * Luong-Cuc Phuong (JSDF) Limestone Landscape EAP Indonesia Coral Reef Manage- 2004 GEF REG 7.50 7.50 7.50 * * * * ment and Rehabili- tation (COREMAP II) EAP Indonesia Coral Reef Manage- 2004 IBRD 44.10 44.10 33.20 * * * * * * ment and Rehabili- tation (COREMAP II) EAP Indonesia Coral Reef Manage- 2004 IDA 23.00 23.00 23.00 * * * * ment and Rehabili- tation (COREMAP II) EAP Vietnam Forest Sector 2004 GEF REG 9.00 9.00 9.00 * * Development EAP Vietnam Forest Sector 2004 IDA 65.59 6.97 0.50 * * Development EAP Vietnam Hai Van Range Green 2004 GEF 2.00 2.00 1.00 * * * * * * Corridor MSP EAP Regional I-Marine Aquarium 2004 GEF IFC 22.28 22.28 6.92 * * * * * (East Asia) Market Transformation Initiative (Tranche I) EAP Indonesia Livelihoods 2004 TF 1.36 0.85 0.85 * * * (JSDF) EAP Philippines Asian Conservation 2005 GEF IFC 5.10 5.10 2.90 * * * * * Company (Tranche II) EAP Lao PDR Bolikhamxay Integra- 2005 GEF 1.61 1.61 1.00 * * * * ted Ecosystem and MSP Wildlife Conservation EAP Vietnam Intergrating water- 2005 GEF 1.74 1.74 1.00 * * * * * shed and biodiversity MSP management in Chu Yang Sin National Park EAP Indonesia Komodo Collaborative 2005 GEF IFC 16.98 16.98 5.38 * * Management Initia- tive (KCMI) EAP Indonesia Lambusango Forest 2005 GEF 4.49 4.49 1.00 * * * * * Conservation, Sulawesi MSP
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 80 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 EAP Lao PDR Lao Environment 2005 IDA 4.80 1.54 1.28 * * * * * * * and Social Program EAP Lao PDR Nam Theun 2 Social 2005 IDA 24.00 5.00 5.00 * * * * * and Environment Program EAP Mongolia Netherlands Mongolia 2005 TF 6.00 1.23 1.23 * * * * Trust Fund for the (NEMO) Environment (NEMO) EAP Indonesia Aceh Forest and 2006 TF 17.50 14.00 14.00 Environment (MDF) EAP Kirabati Adaptation Program 2006 GEF REG 6.69 4.33 1.02 * * * * (KAP II) EAP China Changjiang/Pearl 2006 IDA 200.00 9.70 6.08 River Watershed Rehabilitation EAP China Guangxi Integrated 2006 CF 2.00 2.00 2.00 * * * * * Forestry Development and Conservation EAP China Guangxi Integrated 2006 GEF REG 5.25 5.25 5.25 * * * * * Forestry Development and Conservation EAP China Guangxi Integrated 2006 IBRD 204.50 22.00 20.05 * * * * * Forestry Development and Conservation EAP China Ningbo Water and 2006 GEF REG 5.35 5.35 5.35 * Environment EAP China Ningbo Water and 2006 IBRD 140.10 12.12 1.20 * Environment EAP Philippines National Program for 2007 GEF REG 7.00 7.00 7.00 * * Environment and Natural Resources Management EAP Philippines National Program for 2007 IBRD 80.35 18.50 13.70 * * Environment and Natural Resources Management EAP Indonesia Partnerships for Con- 2007 GEF 2.09 2.09 0.99 * * servation Manage- MSP ment of the Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park, North Maluku Province EAP Mongolia The Netherlands- 2007 TF 2.57 2.57 2.44 * * * * Mongolia Trust Fund (NEMO) for Environmental Reform (NEMO II)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 81 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ECA Poland Forest Biodiversity 1992 Closed GEF REG 6.20 6.20 4.50 * * * * * Protection ECA Turkey Eastern Anatolia 1993 Closed IBRD 109.80 7.76 5.44 * * * Watershed Rehabili- tation ECA Belarus Forest Biodiversity 1993 Closed GEF REG 1.25 1.25 1.00 * * * * * Protection ECA Czech Biodiversity 1994 Closed GEF REG 2.75 2.75 2.00 * * * Republic Protection ECA Slovak Biodiversity 1994 Closed GEF REG 2.86 2.86 2.17 * * * * * Republic Protection ECA Belarus Forestry Development 1994 Closed IBRD 54.70 2.13 0.50 * * * ECA Poland Forestry Development 1994 Closed IBRD 335.40 14.00 2.00 * * * * ECA Ukraine Transcarpathian Bio- 1994 Closed GEF REG 0.58 0.58 0.50 * * * * * diversity Protection ECA Romania Danube Delta 1995 GEF REG 4.80 4.80 4.50 * * * * Biodiversity ECA Ukraine Danube Delta 1995 Closed GEF REG 1.74 1.74 1.50 * * * * * Biodiversity ECA Estonia Haapsalu and Matsalu 1995 Closed IBRD 8.37 0.48 0.11 * * Bays Environment ECA Lithuania Klaipeda Environment 1995 Closed IBRD 23.10 1.50 0.10 * * * ECA Latvia Liepaja Environment 1995 Closed IBRD 21.17 0.50 0.10 * ECA Estonia Agriculture 1996 Closed IBRD 30.90 0.90 0.46 * ECA Russia Biodiversity 1996 Closed GEF REG 26.00 26.00 20.10 * * * * * * Conservation ECA Albania Forestry 1996 Closed IDA 21.60 4.15 1.54 * * * ECA Croatia Coastal Forest 1997 Closed IBRD 67.00 2.90 2.90 * * * Reconstruction and Protection ECA Albania National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 1.00 1.00 1.00 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report ECA Croatia National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.10 0.10 0.10 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report ECA Georgia National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.12 0.12 0.12 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report ECA Kyrgyz National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.11 0.11 0.11 * Republic Strategy, Action Plan and Report ECA Lithuania National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.07 0.07 0.07 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 82 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ECA Slovak National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.08 0.08 0.08 * Republic Strategy, Action Plan and Report ECA Ukraine National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.12 0.12 0.11 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report. Phase I ECA Regional Aral Sea Basin Pro- 1998 GEF REG 21.50 3.90 2.21 * (Central Asia) gram: Water and Envi- ronmental ECA Bosnia- Forestry 1998 Closed IDA 20.20 1.85 0.64 * * Herzegovina ECA Regional Lake Ohrid 1998 Closed GEF REG 4.37 1.95 1.83 * * (Central Asia) Conservation ECA Czech National Biodiversity 1998 Closed GEF EA 0.10 0.10 0.10 * Republic Strategy, Action Plan and Report ECA Slovenia National Biodiversity 1998 Closed GEF EA 0.09 0.09 0.09 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report ECA Moldova National Biodiversity 1998 Closed GEF EA 0.13 0.13 0.13 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report (Phase I) ECA Croatia Reconstruction for 1998 Closed IBRD 61.10 2.20 1.00 * Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srijem ECA Romania Biodiversity 1999 GEF REG 8.80 8.80 5.50 * * * * Conservation ECA Regional Central Asia Trans- 1999 GEF REG 13.65 13.65 10.15 * * * * (Central Asia) boundary Biodiversity ECA Turkey In-Situ Conservation 1999 Closed GEF REG 5.70 5.70 5.10 * * * * of Genetic Biodiversity ECA Georgia Integrated Coastal 1999 GEF REG 1.20 1.20 1.20 * * * Management ECA Georgia Integrated Coastal 1999 IDA 6.30 4.80 2.60 * * Management ECA Croatia Kopacki Rit Wetlands 1999 Closed GEF MSP 2.36 2.36 0.75 * * * * Management ECA Albania Support to Butrint 1999 Closed TF (IDF) 0.23 0.23 0.23 * * National Park Management ECA Turkey Biodiversity and 2000 GEF REG 11.54 11.54 8.19 * * * * * * * Natural Resource Management
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 83 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ECA Slovak Conservation and 2000 GEF 1.10 1.10 1.10 * * * Republic Sustainable Use of MSP Central European Grasslands ECA Bosnia- Environmental 2000 Closed TF (IDF) 0.29 0.15 0.15 * Herzegovina Capacity Building ECA Poland Rural Environmental 2000 Closed GEF REG 3.00 0.75 0.75 * * * Protection ECA Russia Sustainable Forestry 2000 IBRD 74.50 11.20 9.02 * * * * * * Pilot ECA Moldova Assessment of Capa- 2001 Closed GEF EA 0.34 0.34 0.30 * city Building Needs and Country Specific Priorities in Bio- diversity (Phase II) ECA Ukraine Assessment of 2001 GEF EA 0.37 0.37 0.32 * * Capacity-building Needs and Country- specific Priorities in Biodiversity, Phase II ECA Macedonia National Strategy and 2001 Closed GEF EA 0.37 0.37 0.34 * Action Plan of Bio- logical and Landscape Diversity ECA Georgia Protected Areas 2001 GEF REG 30.30 30.30 8.70 * * * * * Development ECA Kazakhstan Syr Darya Control and 2001 IBRD 85.80 2.00 0.42 * North Aral Sea Phase-I ECA Romania Agricultural Pollution 2002 GEF REG 10.80 1.09 0.52 * Control ECA Ukraine Azov Black Sea 2002 Closed GEF REG 6.90 6.90 6.90 * * * * * Corridor Biodiversity Conservation ECA Moldova Biodiversity Conser- 2002 Closed GEF 1.71 1.71 0.98 * * * * * * vation in the Lower MSP Dniester Delta Ecosystem ECA Albania Fishery Development 2002 IDA 6.66 1.19 1.00 * * * * * ECA Croatia Karst Ecosystem 2002 GEF REG 8.37 8.37 5.07 * * * * * * Conservation ECA Russia Khabarovsk Habitat 2002 GEF 1.75 1.75 0.75 * * * * Conservation MSP ECA Armenia Natural Resources 2002 GEF REG 5.21 5.21 5.21 * * * * * * * * * Management and Poverty Reduction
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 84 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ECA Armenia Natural Resources 2002 IDA 16.00 5.99 5.20 * * * * * * Management and Poverty Reduction ECA Bulgaria Wetlands Restoration 2002 GEF REG 13.28 10.60 5.99 * * * * * * and Pollution Reduction ECA Regional Baltic Sea Regional I 2003 GEF REG 12.12 1.41 0.64 * * * * (Central Asia) ECA Uzbekistan Drainage, Irrigation & 2003 IBRD 43.55 0.50 0.40 * Wetlands Improve- ment-Phase I ECA Uzbekistan Drainage, Irrigation & 2003 IDA 31.00 0.50 0.40 * Wetlands Improve- ment-Phase II ECA Kazakhstan Drylands 2003 GEF REG 9.70 0.46 0.25 * * * * Management ECA Georgia Forest Development 2003 IDA 21.34 5.00 3.67 * * * * * ECA Romania Forest Development 2003 IBRD 31.89 2.44 1.91 * * * * * * ECA Bosnia- Forest Development 2003 IDA 5.09 1.80 1.32 * * * * Herzegovina and Conservation ECA Romania Afforestation of 2004 CF 13.76 1.65 0.44 * * Degraded Agricultural Land Proto-Carbon ECA Turkey Anatolia Watershed 2004 GEF REG 16.46 2.82 1.62 * * Rehabilitation ECA Turkey Anatolia Watershed 2004 IBRD 28.65 3.84 2.75 * * Rehabilitation ECA Tajikistan Community Water- 2004 GEF REG 4.50 1.70 1.70 * * * * shed Development ECA Tajikistan Community Water- 2004 IDA 15.29 1.00 0.50 * * * * shed Development ECA Tajikistan Dashtidzhum Biodi- 2004 GEF 0.97 0.97 0.78 * * * versity Conservation MSP and Risk Mitigation ECA Albania Integrated Water and 2004 GEF REG 20.00 0.91 0.91 * * * * * * Ecosystems Manage- ment ECA Albania Assessment of Capa- 2005 GEF EA 0.39 0.39 0.32 * city Building Needs and Country Specific Priorities in Biodi- versity (PHASE II) ECA Albania Coastal Zone Mana- 2005 IDA 38.56 4.00 0.50 * * * gement and Clean-up
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 85 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ECA Kazakhstan Community Based 2005 TF 1.90 1.40 1.40 * * * Aral Sea Fisheries (JSDF) Management and Sustainable ECA Kazakhstan Forest Protection and 2005 GEF REG 5.00 1.44 1.44 * Reforestation ECA Kazakhstan Forest Protection and 2005 IBRD 59.00 47.70 20.50 * Reforestation ECA Albania Natural Resources 2005 GEF REG 5.00 2.00 1.00 * * Development ECA Albania Natural Resources 2005 IDA 14.40 5.00 3.50 * * Development ECA Bulgaria Pomoriisko Lake 2005 GEF 2.01 2.01 0.89 * * * Conservation, Resto- MSP ration and Manage- ment ECA Azerbaijan Rural Environment 2005 GEF REG 5.35 5.35 5.35 * * * * * * * ECA Azerbaijan Rural Environment 2005 IDA 9.50 9.50 6.96 * * ECA Bosnia- Forest Additional 2006 IDA 4.78 0.11 0.11 * * * Herzegovina Financing ECA Hungary Nutrient Reduction 2006 GEF REG 12.50 6.50 5.20 * * ECA Hungary Nutrient Reduction 2006 IBRD 18.96 0.50 0.35 * * ECA Azerbaijan Rural Environment 2006 TF 2.70 2.70 2.70 * (PHRD) ECA Albania Afforestation & 2007 CF 1.04 1.04 1.04 * * Reforestation of Refused Lands ECA Albania Afforestation & 2007 TF 0.61 0.61 0.58 * * Reforestation of (PHRD) Refused Lands ECA Albania Butrint Global Bio- 2007 GEF REG 2.16 2.16 0.99 * * diversity and Heritage Conservation ECA Montenegro Sustainable Tourism 2007 IDA 41.10 4.30 1.60 * * * * Development ECA Serbia Transitional Agri- 2007 GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * * culture Reform GEF ECA Serbia Transitional Agri- 2007 IBRD 25.00 7.50 7.50 * * * culture Reform GEF ECA Poland Rural Environmental 2000 Closed IBRD 12.80 0.33 0.33 * * * Protection Global Global Assessment and 2007 GEF 0.61 0.61 0.25 * * Recommendations on MSP Improving Access of Indigenous Peoples to Conservation Funding
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 86 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Global Global Biodiversity and Agri- 2007 GEF IFC 20.36 20.36 7.00 * * * cultural Commodities Global Global Coral Reef Targeted 2004 GEF REG 19.30 19.30 11.00 * * Research and Capacity Building For Management Global Global Coral Reef Targeted 2004 IBRD 3.00 3.00 3.00 * * Research and Capacity Building For Management Global Global Critical Ecosystem 2008 GEF REG 100.00 100.00 20.00 * * * Partnership Fund 2 Global Global Critical Ecosystem 2008 DGF 3.00 3.00 0.00 * * * Partnership Fund 2 Global Global Critical Ecosystems 2001 Closed GEF REG 100.00 100.00 25.00 * * * * * * * * * Partnership Fund Global Global Critical Ecosystems 2001 Closed TF 25.00 25.00 25.00 * * * * * * * * * Partnership Fund (DGF) Global Global Development Market- 2003 GEF 2.15 1.08 0.50 * place Climate Change MSP and Biodiversity Global Global Environmental Busi- 2004 GEF IFC 100.00 5.00 5.00 * ness Finance Program Global Global Forests and 2000 TF 6.60 6.60 6.60 * * * Biodiversity Window (BNPP) Global Global Forests Partnerships 2004 TF 1.55 1.55 1.55 * * * Program (DGF) Global Global Global Invasive 2005 Closed TF 1.70 1.70 1.70 * * Species Program (DGF) Global Global Global Invasive 2002 TF 0.70 0.70 1.34 * * Species Program (BNPP) Global Global Local Language Field 2001 TF 1.10 1.10 0.90 * * Guides (BNPP) Global Global Global Forest 2008 TF 3.80 3.80 3.80 * * Partnership (DGF) Global Global Millenium Ecosystem 2004 TF 1.00 0.50 0.50 * Assessment (DGF) LAC Brazil Land Management I 1989 Closed IBRD 149.10 4.70 1.96 * * * * (Parana) LAC Brazil Land Management II 1990 Closed IBRD 76.30 4.30 1.98 * * * * (Santa Catarina) LAC Brazil National Environ 1990 Closed IBRD 166.40 166.40 117.00 * * * * * mental Program LAC St. Lucia Water Supply 1990 Closed IBRD 35.30 0.20 0.01 * LAC St. Lucia Water Supply 1990 Closed IDA 5.20 0.03 0.03 *
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 87 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Mexico Decentralization and 1991 Closed IBRD 1362.70 40.00 15.08 * * * * * * * Regional Development LAC Ecuador Lower Guayas Flood 1991 Closed IBRD 97.50 1.80 1.09 * Control LAC Mexico Environmental Project 1992 Closed IBRD 60.77 13.23 4.30 * * * LAC Brazil Mato Grosso Natural 1992 Closed IBRD 285.70 48.50 44.70 * * * * Resource Manage- ment LAC Mexico Protected Areas 1992 Closed GEF REG 10.70 10.70 8.70 * * * * * * Program LAC Brazil Rondonia Natural 1992 Closed IBRD 228.90 38.70 35.90 * * * * Resource Manage- ment LAC Ecuador Rural Development 1992 Closed IBRD 112.70 1.93 1.44 * * * * * LAC Bolivia Biodiversity 1993 Closed GEF REG 8.39 8.39 4.54 * * * * * Conservation LAC Chile Environmental Institu- 1993 Closed IBRD 32.80 16.40 5.75 * * tions Development LAC Argentina Yacyreta 1993 Closed IBRD 2591.10 4.50 4.50 * * * * * Hydroelectric II LAC Nicaragua Agricultural 1994 Closed IDA 57.80 0.50 0.38 * * Technology and Land Management LAC Ecuador Biodiversity Protection 1994 Closed GEF REG 8.70 8.70 7.20 * * * * * * LAC Colombia Natural Resource 1994 Closed IBRD 65.30 11.60 6.93 * * * * * Management Program LAC Paraguay Natural Resources 1994 Closed IBRD 79.10 14.83 9.38 * * * * * * Management LAC Mexico Northern Border 1994 Closed IBRD 762.00 15.00 7.24 * * Environmental Project LAC Brazil Demonstrations 1995 Closed TF 22.00 22.00 3.00 * * * * * * (RFTF) LAC Honduras Environmental 1995 Closed IDA 12.48 2.50 2.16 * * * * Development LAC Brazil Extractive Reserves 1995 Closed TF 9.70 9.70 3.00 * * * * (RFTF) LAC Brazil Indigenous Lands 1995 Closed TF 20.90 20.90 2.10 * * * * (RFTF) LAC Venezuela Inparques 1995 Closed IBRD 95.90 95.90 55.00 * * * * * LAC Bolivia National Land 1995 Closed IBRD 27.00 0.50 0.50 * Administration LAC Brazil Natural Resources 1995 Closed TF 79.00 79.00 20.00 * * Policy (RFTF) LAC Brazil Science Centers and 1995 Closed TF 15.10 15.10 8.50 * * * Directed Research (RFTF)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 88 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Regional Ship-Generated Waste 1995 Closed GEF REG 5.50 0.20 0.20 * * (Eastern Management Caribbean States) LAC Costa Rica Training Program for 1995 Closed TF (IDF) 0.12 0.06 0.06 * * * Sustainable Develop- ment of Indigenous People LAC Peru Trust Fund for Parks 1995 Closed GEF REG 7.86 7.86 5.00 * * * * * and Protected Areas LAC Brazil Brazilian Biodiversity 1996 Closed GEF REG 25.00 25.00 20.00 * * * * Fund (FUNBIO) LAC Brazil Environmental Con- 1996 Closed IBRD 109.00 10.90 5.00 * * * * * servation and Rehabilitation LAC Argentina Forestry Development 1996 Closed IBRD 26.20 7.62 4.65 * * * * * LAC Brazil National Biodiversity 1996 Closed GEF REG 20.28 20.28 10.28 * * * * * * (PROBIO) LAC Brazil Rural Poverty Allevia- 1996 Closed IBRD 175.00 24.80 10.00 * * * * tion and Natrual Re- sources Management LAC Colombia Santa Fe Water Supply 1996 Closed IBRD 414.20 2.40 1.58 * * * * and Sewerage Rehabilitation I LAC St. Lucia Watershed and 1996 Closed IDA 7.10 2.50 0.93 * * Environmental Management LAC Regional Planning for 1997 Closed GEF REG 6.49 0.325 0.31 * * * (Caribbean Adaptation to Global \States) Climate Change LAC Nicaragua Atlantic Biological 1997 Closed GEF REG 7.10 7.10 7.10 * * * * * Corridor LAC Mexico Community Forestry 1997 Closed IBRD 23.57 9.90 6.30 * * * * * * LAC Argentina El Nino Emergency 1997 Closed IBRD 60.00 0.65 0.43 * Flood LAC Argentina Flood Protection 1997 Closed IBRD 488.00 3.60 1.48 * * * * LAC Haiti Forest and Parks Pro- 1997 Closed IDA 22.50 22.50 21.50 * * * tection Technical Assistance LAC Brazil Forest Resources 1997 TF 20.00 2.00 2.00 * * * * * * * * * Management (RFTF) LAC Argentina Native Forests and 1997 IBRD 30.00 30.00 19.50 * * * * * Protected Areas LAC Mexico Proposed Restruc- 1997 Closed GEF REG 34.55 34.55 17.48 * * * * turing of Protected Areas Program
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 89 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Honduras Rural Land 1997 Closed IDA 34.00 17.25 14.03 * * * * * Management LAC Nicaragua Rural Municipalities 1997 Closed IBRD 40.40 7.65 5.68 * * * * * * LAC Panama Rural Poverty and 1997 Closed IBRD 27.30 3.20 3.00 * * * * Natural Resources LAC Panama Atlantic Mesoamerican 1998 Closed GEF REG 12.80 12.80 8.40 * * * * * * * Biodiversity Corridor LAC Brazil Bahia Water Resources 1998 Closed IBRD 85.00 6.87 4.10 * * * * * * * Management LAC Argentina Biodiversity 1998 GEF REG 21.90 21.90 10.10 * * * * Conservation LAC Honduras Biodiversity in 1998 Closed GEF REG 9.50 9.50 7.00 * * * * Priority Areas LAC Costa Rica Biodiversity Resources 1998 GEF REG 11.00 11.00 7.00 * * * * * * Development LAC Brazil Federal Water Re- 1998 IBRD 330.00 0.63 0.38 * * sources Management (PROAGUA) LAC Brazil Gas Sector 1998 Closed IBRD 2086.00 25.00 12.00 * * * * Development LAC Ecuador Indigenous and Afro- 1998 Closed IBRD 50.00 6.91 3.47 * * * * * * * * Ecuadorian Peoples Development LAC Costa Rica Institutional Strength- 1998 Closed TF (IDF) 0.40 0.20 0.20 * * ening on Gender in Natural Resource Management and Agriculture LAC Brazil Land Management III 1998 IBRD 124.70 10.72 4.73 * * * * * (Sao Paolo) LAC Dominican National Environ- 1998 Closed IBRD 3.70 1.95 1.58 * * * Republic mental Policy Reform LAC Dominican National Biodiversity 1998 Closed GEF EA 0.25 0.25 0.25 * Republic Strategy, Action Plan and Report LAC Haiti National Biodiversity 1998 Closed GEF EA 0.26 0.26 0.26 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report LAC Saint Vincent National Biodiversity 1998 Closed GEF EA 0.35 0.35 0.35 * & the Strategy, Action Plan Grenadines and Report LAC El Salvador Promotion of Biodi- 1998 Closed GEF MSP 3.81 3.81 0.73 * * * * * versity Conservation with Coffee Landscapes
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 90 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAC Regional Terra Capita Fund for 1998 Closed GEF IFC 30.00 30.00 5.00 * * * * (Latin Biodiversity America) Enterprises LAC Colombia Cartagena Water 1999 IBRD 117.00 0.41 0.41 * * * Supply and Sewerage Environmental Management LAC Venezuela Conservation and 1999 Closed GEF 2.43 2.43 0.94 * * * Sustainable Use of MSP Llanos Ecoregion LAC Panama Effective Protection 1999 GEF 2.23 2.23 0.73 * * * * * * with Community Par- MSP ticipation of the New Protected Area of San Lorenzo LAC Mexico El Triunfo Biosphere 1999 GEF 2.12 2.12 0.73 * * * * * * Reserve: Habitat MSP Enhancement in Pro- ductive Landscapes LAC Brazil Fire Prevention and 1999 TF 2.00 2.00 1.00 * * * * * Mobilization (RFTF) LAC Brazil Fire Prevention and 1999 Closed IBRD 20.00 20.00 15.00 * * * * * Mobilization in the Amazon (PROARCO) LAC Honduras Interactive Environ- 1999 Closed IDA 9.30 2.33 2.08 * * * mental Learning and Science Promotion LAC Brazil Monitoring and 1999 TF 5.80 5.80 2.00 * Analysis (RFTF) LAC Ecuador Monitoring System for 1999 GEF 1.59 1.59 0.94 * * * * * the Galapagos Islands MSP LAC Belize Northern Belize Bio- 1999 Closed GEF 3.91 3.91 0.75 * * * * * logical Corridors MSP LAC Nicaragua Sustainable Forestry 1999 Closed IDA 15.00 7.50 4.50 * * * * * Investment Promotion LAC Mexico Sustainable Hill-Side 1999 GEF 0.72 0.72 0.50 * * * Management in MSP Indigenous Micro- catchments in Oaxaca LAC Colombia Sustainable Use of 1999 Closed GEF 2.96 2.96 0.73 * * * * * * Biodiversity in Western MSP Slope of Serrania del Baudo (Choco) LAC Ecuador Wetland Priorities for 1999 GEF 0.91 0.91 0.72 * * * * Conservation Action MSP
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 91 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Colombia Archipelago of San 2000 Closed GEF 4.16 4.16 0.98 * * * Andres: Conservation MSP and Sustainable Use of the Marine Reserves LAC Brazil Ceara Integrated 2000 IBRD 247.20 5.90 5.90 * * * Water Resource Man- agement (PROGERIRH) LAC Peru Collaborative Man- 2000 GEF 2.07 2.07 0.73 * * * * * * * * agement for the Cons- MSP ervation and Sustain- able Development of the Northwest Bio- sphere Reserve (Tumbes) LAC Costa Rica EcoMarkets 2000 GEF REG 8.00 8.00 8.00 * * * * * * * LAC Costa Rica EcoMarkets 2000 IBRD 41.20 27.47 21.53 * * * * * * * LAC Peru Indigenous and Afro- 2000 Closed IBRD 6.70 3.35 2.50 * * * * * * Peruvian Peoples Development LAC Guatemala Management and 2000 Closed GEF 1.66 1.66 0.72 * * * * * Protection of Laguna MSP del Tigre National Park LAC Peru Participatory Conser- 2000 GEF 1.14 1.14 0.73 * * * * * * * vation and Sustain- MSP able Development with Indigenous Communities in Vilcabamba LAC Regional Public Communication 2000 TF (IDF) 0.45 0.45 0.45 * (Central and Education on the America) Meso-American Biological Corridor LAC Honduras Road Reconstruction 2000 Closed IDA 106.80 0.30 0.20 * * * and Improvement LAC Belize Roads and Municipal 2000 Closed IBRD 18.38 0.18 0.18 * * Drainage LAC Mexico Rural Development in 2000 Closed IBRD 63.00 4.25 4.25 * * * * Marginal Areas (APL II) LAC Colombia Sierra Nevada 2000 IBRD 6.25 6.25 5.00 * * * * * * * * Sustainable Development LAC Costa Rica Training Program for 2000 Closed TF (IDF) 0.30 0.15 0.15 * * Sustainable Develop- ment of Indigenous People
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 92 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Colombia Andean Region 2001 GEF REG 30.00 30.00 15.00 * * * * * * * Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity LAC Nicaragua Barrier Removal and 2001 GEF 12.08 12.08 0.73 * * * * * Forest Habitat MSP Conservation LAC Peru Biodiversity Conserv- 2001 GEF 0.95 0.95 0.75 * * * * * * * ation through Sustain- MSP able Management of the Nanay River Basin (Peruvian Amazon) LAC Ecuador Choco-Andean 2001 GEF 3.19 3.19 0.98 * * * * * Corridor MSP LAC Ecuador Coastal Albarradas: 2001 GEF 3.08 3.08 0.73 * * * * * Rescuing Ancient MSP Knowledge and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity LAC Colombia Conservation and 2001 Closed GEF 1.37 1.37 0.73 * * * Sustainable Develop- MSP ment of the Mataven Forest LAC Regional Conservation and 2001 GEF REG 24.20 24.20 11.00 * * * * * * * (Central Sustainable Use of the America) Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) LAC Grenada Dry Forest Biodiversity 2001 GEF 1.13 1.13 0.72 * * * * * * Conservation MSP LAC Brazil Fire Prevention and 2001 TF 2.00 2.00 2.00 * * * Mobilization in the (RFTF) Amazon (PROTEGER II) LAC Mexico Indigenous and Com- 2001 GEF REG 7.50 7.50 7.50 * * * * * * * * munity Biodiversity Conservation (COINBIO) LAC Mexico Indigenous and Com- 2001 GEF REG 11.20 11.20 2.60 * * * * * munity Biodiversity Conservation (COINBIO) LAC Argentina Indigenous Commu- 2001 IBRD 5.88 2.94 2.50 * * nity Development LAC Bolivia Indigenous 2001 Closed IBRD 5.00 1.11 1.11 * * * * * Development LAC Peru Indigenous Manage- 2001 GEF REG 14.61 14.61 10.00 * * * * * ment of Protected Areas in the Peruvian Amazon
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 93 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Peru Indigenous Manage- 2001 IBRD 8.14 8.14 5.00 * * * * * ment of Protected Areas in the Peruvian Amazon LAC Panama Land Administration 2001 IBRD 72.36 8.92 5.90 * * * * * * LAC Mexico Mesoamerican 2001 GEF REG 26.77 26.77 14.84 * * * * * * * Biological Corridor LAC Mexico Natural Disaster 2001 Closed IBRD 658.30 1.28 0.78 * * Management LAC Argentina Patagonia Coastal 2001 GEF REG 18.76 13.85 6.16 * * * Contamination Pre- vention and Sustain- able Fisheries Management LAC Ecuador Poverty Reduction 2001 IBRD 41.96 1.70 1.02 * * * * * and Local Rural Development (PROLOCAL) LAC Bolivia Removing Obstacles 2001 Closed GEF 1.13 1.13 0.72 * * * * * * to Direct Private- MSP Sector Participation in In-Situ Biodiversity Conservation (PROMETA) LAC Nicaragua Second Rural Mu- 2001 IDA 40.70 6.58 5.35 * * nicipal Development LAC Bolivia Sustainability of the 2001 Closed GEF REG 43.99 43.99 15.00 * * * * * * * National System of Protected Areas LAC Costa Rica Sustainable Cacao 2001 GEF 3.01 3.01 0.72 * * * * * * Production in South- MSP eastern Costa Rica LAC Chile Valdivian Forest Zone: 2001 GEF 0.73 0.73 0.73 * * * * * * Private Public Mecha- MSP nisms for Biodiversity Conservation LAC Guatemala Western Altiplano 2001 Closed GEF REG 8.00 8.00 8.00 * * * Integrated Natural Re- source Management LAC Guatemala Western Altiplano 2001 Closed IBRD 47.60 47.60 32.80 * * * Integrated Natural Re- source Management LAC Brazil Amazon Region 2002 GEF REG 81.35 81.35 30.35 * * * * * * * * Protected Areas LAC Guatemala Community Manage- 2002 GEF 1.48 1.48 0.75 * * * * * * * * * ment of the Bio-Itza MSP Reserve
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 94 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Chile Conservation of the 2002 GEF 4.72 4.72 0.73 * * * Santiago Foothills MSP LAC Mexico Consolidation of Pro- 2002 GEF REG 60.12 60.12 16.10 * * * * * * * * * tected Areas (SINAP I) LAC Brazil Ecological Corridors 2002 TF 5.16 5.16 3.90 * * * * * * * (RFTF) LAC Regional Integrated Silvopas- 2002 GEF REG 8.45 8.45 4.50 * * * * * (Latin toral Approaches to America) Ecosystem Manage- ment LAC Nicaragua Land Administration 2002 IDA 38.50 5.17 4.37 * * * * * * LAC Bolivia National Land 2002 Closed IBRD 6.00 0.05 0.05 * * Administration (Supplemental) LAC Brazil Parana Biodiversity 2002 GEF REG 32.86 32.86 8.00 * * * * * * * * * * LAC Mexico Private Land 2002 GEF 2.53 2.53 0.73 * * * Conservation MSP Mechanisms LAC Honduras Rural Land Manage- 2002 Closed IDA 9.10 0.50 0.50 * * * * ment (Supplemental Credit) LAC Brazil Santa Catarina Natural 2002 IBRD 107.50 3.30 3.30 * * * * Resources & Poverty LAC Honduras Sustainable Coastal 2002 Closed IDA 6.04 1.51 1.25 * * * * * Tourism LAC Ecuador Biodiversity Conserva- 2003 Closed GEF 1.01 1.01 0.76 * * * * tion in Pastaza MSP LAC Colombia Capacity Building in 2003 Closed GEF 4.45 4.45 1.98 * Biosafety MSP LAC Belize Community Manage- 2003 Closed GEF 1.09 1.09 0.83 * * * * * * ment Sarstoon MSP Temash LAC Colombia Community-based 2003 Closed GEF 2.23 2.23 0.75 * * * * * * Management for the MSP Naya Conservation Corridor LAC Mexico Consolidation of Pro- 2003 GEF REG 17.44 17.44 2.21 * * * * * * * * * tected Areas (SINAP II) LAC Paraguay Mbaracayú 2003 Closed GEF 3.00 3.00 0.97 * * * Biodiversity MSP LAC Ecuador National System of 2003 GEF REG 32.70 32.70 8.00 * * * * * * Protected Areas LAC Peru Participatory Manage- 2003 GEF REG 32.81 32.81 14.80 * * * * * * * ment of Protected Areas (PROFONANPE II)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 95 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
LAC Mexico Programmatic Envi- 2003 Closed IBRD 202.00 2.83 2.83 * * * * * ronment Structural Adjustment Loan LAC Honduras Regional Develop- 2003 IDA 13.35 1.73 1.73 * * * ment in the Copan Valley LAC Brazil Tocantins Sustainable 2003 IBRD 100.00 12.70 10.10 * * * * Regional Devpt LAC Colombia Amoya River Environ- 2004 CF 101.40 2.00 0.00 * * mental Services LAC Regional Mainstreaming 2003 GEF REG 10.95 1.00 0.80 * * (Latin Adaptation to Climate America) Change LAC Regional Building the Inter- 2004 GEF REG 34.93 34.93 6.00 * * (Latin American Biodiversity America) Information Network (IABIN) LAC Regional Developing Connec- 2004 TF 1.20 1.20 1.20 * * (Latin tivity between Biologi- (DGF) America) cal and Geospatial Information in Latin America and the Caribbean LAC Honduras Forests and Rural 2004 IDA 32.70 6.78 4.20 * * * * Productivity LAC Peru Inka Terra: An Innova- 2004 GEF 12.12 12.12 0.75 * * * * * tive Partnership for MSP Self-Financing Biodi- versity Conservation & Community Development LAC Regional Integrated Ecosystem 2004 GEF REG 11.50 11.50 4.00 * * * * * (Latin Management in Indig- America) enous Communities LAC Regional OECS Protected Areas 2004 GEF REG 7.57 7.57 3.70 * * * * * (Eastern and Associated Sus- Caribbean tainable Livelihoods States) LAC Regional OECS Protected Areas 2004 GEF REG 7.57 7.57 3.70 * * * * * (Eastern and Associated Sus- Caribbean tainable Livelihoods States) LAC Peru Poison Dart Frog 2004 GEF 1.85 1.85 0.86 * * * * * Ranching to Protect MSP Rainforest and Alleviate Poverty LAC Brazil Amapa Sustainable 2005 IBRD 6.81 2.72 2.40 * * Communities
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 96 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Brazil Atlantic Forest 2005 TF 0.80 0.80 0.80 * * Subprogram (Phase I) (RFTF) LAC Brazil Ceara Multi-sector 2005 IBRD 149.00 4.10 4.10 * * * Social Inclusion Development LAC Brazil Conservation of Bio- 2005 GEF 2.35 2.35 0.99 * * * diversity and Ecosys- MSP tem Rehabilitation in Tabuleiro State Park LAC Venezuela Dhekuana Nonoodo: 2005 GEF 1.10 1.10 0.75 * * * * * Sustainable Use and MSP Conservation of Biodi- versity Resources of Dhekuana Indigenous Lands LAC Brazil Ecosystem Restora- 2005 GEF REG 19.52 19.52 7.75 * * * tion of Riparian Forests in Sao Paulo LAC El Salvador Environmental 2005 GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * * Services LAC Brazil First Programmatic 2005 Closed IBRD 505.05 42.00 42.00 * Reform Loan for Envi- ronmental Sustain- ability LAC Uruguay Integrated Ecosystem 2005 GEF REG 7.00 7.00 7.00 * * * Management LAC Uruguay Integrated Ecosystem 2005 IBRD 88.85 7.00 7.00 * * * Management LAC Brazil Integrated Watershed 2005 GEF 2.18 2.18 1.00 * * * * * * * * Management and Pro- MSP tection (Formoso River) LAC El Salvador Protected Areas 2005 GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * Consolidation and Administration LAC El Salvador Protected Areas 2005 IBRD 5.00 13.40 5.00 * * Consolidation and Administration LAC Brazil Rio de Janeiro Sus- 2005 GEF REG 14.95 14.95 6.75 * * * * * tainable Integrated Ecosystem Manage- ment in Productive Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense LAC Brazil Support to Atlantic 2005 TF 0.93 0.93 0.93 * Forest NGO Network (RFTF) (RMA)
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 97 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Brazil Support to Sustain- 2005 Closed TF 0.48 0.12 0.12 * * able Business Prac- (RFTF) tices in Rain Forests LAC Colombia Colombian National 2006 GEF REG 42.40 13.20 13.20 * * * Protected Areas Conservation Trust Fund LAC Regional Corazon Trans- 2006 GEF REG 12.00 4.55 4.55 * * * (Central boundary Biosphere America) Reserve LAC Mexico Environmental 2006 GEF REG 15.00 10.00 39.30 * * * * Services LAC Mexico Environmental 2006 IBRD 156.56 143.37 39.30 * * * * Services LAC Regional Implementation of 2006 GEF REG 5.47 1.90 1.90 * * (Caribbean Adaptation Measures States) in Coastal Zones LAC Brazil Integrated Manage- 2006 GEF REG 17.36 17.36 7.18 * * * ment of Aquatic Resources in the Amazon (AquaBio) LAC Colombia Integrated National 2006 GEF REG 14.90 5.40 5.40 * * Adaptation Program LAC Costa Rica Mainstreaming 2006 CF 2.55 0.40 7.50 * * * Market-Based Instru- ments for Environ- mental Management LAC Costa Rica Mainstreaming 2006 GEF REG 10.00 9.40 7.50 * * * Market-Based Instru- ments for Environ- mental Management LAC Costa Rica Mainstreaming 2006 IBRD 30.00 7.50 7.50 * * * Market-Based Instru- ments for Environ- mental Management LAC Panama Rural Productivity 2006 GEF REG 6.00 6.00 6.00 * * and Consolidation of the Atlantic Meso- american Biological Corridor LAC Panama Rural Productivity 2006 IBRD 18.10 18.10 10.00 * * and Consolidation of the Atlantic Meso- american Biological Corridor LAC Argentina Urban Flood Preven- 2006 IBRD 93.51 2.77 0.25 * tion and Drainage
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 98 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAC Argentina Biodiversity Conserva- 2007 GEF REG 7.00 7.00 7.00 * * tion in Productive Forestry Landscapes LAC Argentina Biodiversity Conserva- 2007 IBRD 8.88 8.88 4.14 * * tion in Productive Forestry Landscapes LAC Brazil Caatinga Conserva- 2007 GEF REG 23.06 23.06 8.34 * * tion and Manage ment – Mata Branca LAC Colombia Co-furatena Agro- 2007 CF 1.75 0.75 0.75 * * industry Carbon Offset LAC Argentina Conservation of 2007 GEF 1.4 1.4 1.4 * Patagonian Steppe MSP and Southern Andes Fauna LAC Mexico Consolidation of 2007 GEF REG 7.35 7.35 5.30 * * * Protected Areas (SINAP III) LAC Panama Rural Productivity 2007 IBRD 46.90 11.40 10.00 * * LAC Mexico Sacred Orchids of 2007 GEF 2.06 2.06 0.89 * * * * * Chiapas: Cultural and MSP Religious Values in Conservation LAC Argentina Upper Parana Atlantic 2007 GEF 0.5 0.5 0.5 * Forest Restoration by MSP Small-Farmers Global Global Small and Medium 1997 GEF IFC 40.00 20.00 2.00 * * * * * Scale Enterprise Program LAC Brazil National Biodiversity 2008 GEF REG 97.00 97.00 22.00 * * Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation LAC Argentina Sustainable Natural 2008 IBRD 78.80 39.80 33.38 Resources Manage- ment LAC Mexico Community Forestry 2003 IBRD 28.90 1.80 1.80 * * * * (PROCYMAF II) LAC El Salvador Environmental 2005 IBRD 9.50 9.50 5.00 * * * Services MNA Yemen Land and Water 1992 Closed IDA 47.60 0.64 0.44 * Conservation MNA Algeria Pilot Forestry and 1992 Closed IBRD 37.40 0.40 0.27 * * Watershed Manage- ment MNA Tunisia Forestry 1993 Closed IBRD 148.10 1.63 0.87 * * * Development II
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 99 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MNA Iran Irrigation 1993 Closed IBRD 311.70 4.00 0.40 * * * Improvement MNA Egypt Matruh Resource 1993 Closed IDA 29.50 1.70 1.27 * Management MNA Egypt Red Sea Coastal and 1993 Closed GEF REG 5.73 5.73 4.75 * * * * * * Marine Resource Management MNA Algeria El Kala National Park 1994 Closed GEF REG 9.56 9.56 7.20 * * * and Wetlands Management MNA Jordan Gulf of Aqaba Environ- 1996 Closed GEF REG 12.67 0.95 0.65 * * * * * * mental Action Plan MNA Tunisia National Biodiversity 1997 Closed GEF EA 0.89 0.89 0.89 * Strategy, Action Plan and Report MNA Jordan Tourism 1998 Closed IBRD 44.00 9.00 6.55 * * * * * * Development II MNA Yemen Coastal Zone 1999 Closed GEF 1.56 0.75 0.75 * * * * * * Management along MSP the Gulf of Aden MNA Syria Conservation of Bio- 1999 Closed GEF 1.43 1.43 0.75 * * * diversity and Pro- MSP tected Areas Manage- ment MNA Morocco Lakhdar Watershed 1999 Closed IBRD 5.80 0.66 0.46 * * * Management Pilot MNA Yemen Protected Areas 1999 Closed GEF 1.42 0.74 0.74 * * * * * * Management MSP MNA Regional Strategic Action Plan 1999 Closed GEF REG 36.60 12.95 2.11 * * * * * (Red Sea for the Red Sea States) MNA Morocco Protected Areas 2000 GEF REG 15.70 15.70 10.50 * * * * * Management MNA Tunisia Protected Areas 2002 GEF REG 9.88 9.88 5.33 * * * * * Management MNA Jordan Conservation of 2003 GEF REG 14.21 14.21 5.00 * * * * * Medicinal and Herbal Plants MNA Egypt Matruh Resource 2003 GEF REG 5.17 5.17 5.17 * * Management II MNA Egypt Nile Transboundary 2003 GEF REG 43.60 2.71 2.71 * * * * * Environmental Action Plan MNA Tunisia Northwest Mountain 2003 IBRD 44.86 6.28 4.76 * * * * and Forestry Areas Development
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples — 100 — strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Annex 1
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MNA Algeria Second Rural 2003 IBRD 142.89 14.34 9.54 * * * Employment MNA Iran Alborz Integrated 2005 IBRD 200.34 4.40 2.64 * * * Land and Water Management MNA Tunisia Gulf of Gabes Marine 2005 GEF REG 9.81 9.81 6.31 * * * and Coastal Resources Protection MNA Jordan Integrated Ecosys- 2007 GEF REG 12.70 6.15 6.15 * * tems in the Jordan Rift Valley SAR Sri Lanka Forest Sector 1989 Closed IDA 31.40 1.30 0.82 * * * * * Development SAR Pakistan Environmental Pro- 1992 Closed IDA 57.20 6.40 3.00 * * * * tection and Resource Conservation SAR Bangladesh Forest Resources 1992 Closed IDA 58.70 27.20 22.10 * * * * Management SAR India Maharashtra Forestry 1992 Closed IDA 142.00 31.24 27.28 * * * * * SAR Bhutan Trust Fund for 1992 Closed GEF REG 18.58 18.58 10.00 * * * * Environmental Conservation SAR India West Bengal Forestry 1992 Closed IDA 39.00 6.50 5.67 * * * * SAR India Andhra Pradesh 1994 Closed IDA 89.10 28.80 25.02 * * * * * Forestry SAR Pakistan Balochistan Natural 1994 Closed IDA 17.80 4.65 3.84 * * * * * * Resources Management SAR India Forestry Research 1994 Closed IDA 56.40 8.30 6.92 * * * Education and Extension SAR Bangladesh Jamuna Bridge 1994 Closed IDA 696.00 0.25 0.07 * * * SAR Bhutan Third Forestry 1994 Closed IDA 8.90 1.80 1.09 * * * * Development SAR India Madhya Pradesh 1995 Closed IDA 67.30 31.10 26.80 * * * * * * * Forestry SAR Pakistan Punjab Forest Sector 1995 Closed IDA 33.75 2.29 1.69 * * * * Development SAR India Orissa Water 1996 Closed IDA 345.50 1.80 1.52 * * * Resources Consolidation SAR India Ecodevelopment 1997 Closed GEF REG 20.00 20.00 20.00 * * * * * * SAR India Ecodevelopment 1997 Closed IDA 47.00 47.00 28.00 * * * * * * * SAR India Environmental Man- 1997 Closed IDA 65.29 5.34 4.09 * * * agement Capacity Building and Technical Assistance
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity — 101 — 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-based solutions from the World Bank Portfolio
Biodiversity Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv Biodiv Region Country Name FY Status Source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SAR Sri Lanka Conservation and 1998 Closed GEF REG 5.21 5.21 4.60 * * * * * * * Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants SAR India Kerala Forestry 1998 Closed IDA 47.00 19.70 16.35 * * * * * * * SAR India Uttar Pradesh Forestry 1998 Closed IDA 65.01 19.93 16.23 * * * * * * * * SAR Bangladesh Fourth Fisheries 1999 Closed IDA 55.80 32.20 15.60 * * * * * SAR Bangladesh Fourth Fisheries- 1999 Closed GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * * Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation SAR India Gujarat State Highway 2000 Closed IBRD 533.00 0.50 0.20 * SAR Sri Lanka Land Administration 2001 IDA 6.93 0.25 0.18 * * * * and Management SAR Sri Lanka Protected Area 2001 Closed GEF REG 33.50 33.50 9.00 * * * * Management and Wildlife Conservation SAR Pakistan Protected Areas 2001 GEF REG 10.75 10.75 10.08 * * * * * Management SAR India Capacity Building for 2003 GEF EA 3.07 0.60 0.20 * * * Implementation of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety SAR Bhutan Sustainable Land 2006 GEF REG 15.89 7.64 7.64 * * Management SAR India Himachal Pradesh 2007 IBRD 303.43 0.50 0.20 * State Roads
1 Institution building, policies and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous Peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasives alien species
— 102 —
Biodiversity, The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Climate Change, Tel: 202-473-1000 Fax: 202-477-0565 Internet: www.worldbank.org/ biodiversity and Adaptation Nature-Based Solutions from the World Bank Portfolio